Comment: I think,

(See in situ)

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

I think,

"pre-2010, no...we meant pre-2008, no...no...we 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?'

LOL...er.. .o/

sad state of affairs, eh?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"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