[ExI] (In)voluntary technology

[David Lubkin]

Spike wrote:

>The distinction of voluntary vs involuntary 
>brings in an answer to a question privacy 
>advocates were not asking.  The implication is 
>that if anyone uses a cell phone, the fed is 
>justified in intercepting the signal since the 
>use of a cell phone is voluntary.  This is a new take on an old question.
>
>I urge those interested in this topic to focus on the bigger picture.

They're separate matters. It's reasonable to be concerned about the
question of when a government can or should be allowed to snoop on
you. The one I focused on is *my* question about a different concern —
the line of reasoning that suggests that a government can be as
burdensome as it cares to when it pertains to something you don't
*need* to do.

In order to understand where they might take that, or where they already
feel entitled, it'd be useful to know what they argue or concede is not
voluntary.

For instance, at the same time the court contends that cell phones
are entirely voluntary, the FCC's Lifelife program is advanced on
the premise that a cell phone is a necessity of life.

<http://www.fcc.lifeline>


-- David.