The words “disclaimer”, “waiver” and “sign” do not occur in the bill. Whatever process you think exists does not, because, again, you haven’t bothered to understand what the bill is about. It’s not getting anyone to sign any disclaimer, so that information, whatever it might be, cannot be newly collected.
If you disagree, you need identify - preferably by referencing the actual clauses of the bill that I linked above - what new thing the bill introduces, and what harm that is likely to lead to.
The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses that they can use to identify anything anyone has said at any time in coordination with the dad Brokers they can easily buy information from. You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs well ignoring the real purpose here. We both know it. Or I hope we both know it cuz otherwise you are not very observant.
The words “disclaimer”, “waiver” and “sign” do not occur in the bill. Whatever process you think exists does not, because, again, you haven’t bothered to understand what the bill is about. It’s not getting anyone to sign any disclaimer, so that information, whatever it might be, cannot be newly collected.
If you disagree, you need identify - preferably by referencing the actual clauses of the bill that I linked above - what new thing the bill introduces, and what harm that is likely to lead to.
The state is collecting a database of which names are which IP addresses that they can use to identify anything anyone has said at any time in coordination with the dad Brokers they can easily buy information from. You are giving me the lawyerly pr bs well ignoring the real purpose here. We both know it. Or I hope we both know it cuz otherwise you are not very observant.