Henry Spencer wrote:

WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.


Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
information.

Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
its ability to ruin your life is greater.

And yet many seem perfectly happy to trust it with their most intimate
financial records. As I noted previously, it's amusing that the people
up in arms about this usually consider corporations evil, and government
beneficent. I suspect they're much more concerned (or, more cynically,
hoping that they can get the public concerned) about the fact that it's
being done by the Chimpy McHalliburton administration than that it's
being done at all.

Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?

It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,

There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
records of calls is not "eavesdropping."