Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
It may sound that way to the ignorant but that would be just one of the many ways ignorance leads people to incorrect ideas and conclusions.
Gee, what a great way to turn an admitted lack of knowledge into defacto ignorance, using that as a semantic bludgeon.



No they're not. Your web "fingerprint" is something else and while that data is theoretically available from this it's not what has been referred to so far. Your web "fingerprint" is also rather indefinite. It changes. So yes, a particular fingerprint can theoretically live forever but its association with you does not.
Not sure how you make that theoretical jump, when opposing theories claim what matters IS the lifetime of a digital finger/foot print, and any associations.



The NSA almost certainly is the biggest surveillance organization in the US government, certainly by volume of surveillance data it generates but physical surveillance is not exactly its forte. It doesn't have operatives, it doesn't plant cameras or audio listening devices. If you want physical surveillance you go to the FBI, the CIA, hell the National Reconnaissance Office. The NSA deals signal communication....
But today's modern digital surveillance is being defined according to previously defined physical surveillance standards. No, it doesn't mean any human operatives, spies, physical cameras or listening 'devices'. It means one computer program or software design can be overlooked, underestimated, and cause more damage than a thousand human moles.