The first thing that pops into your head when reading "private vehicle's location need not be streamed to government" is: why would it? What did I miss? These are the relevant sentences from the article:
> It seems preposterous, but the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) this privacy-infringing protocol in 2020. [Yes, the verb is missing here, but okay it's some law.... but why?]
> What benefits does the Government point to in response? Next to nothing. [great, lots of detail there]
> The regulation—issued pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976—was proposed by NOAA. [okay we got a headline of a potential reason behind it now, but are rental boats really the culprit in overfishing? Wouldn't it be fishing companies? Why only in 2023? Sounds fishy]
And that's all we get. After 518 words on the topic, the page "goes on" to report on decriminalizing pscyhedelic [sic] plants in some cities.
So.... asking as someone out of the loop... what's this all about in the first place?
> It seems preposterous, but the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) this privacy-infringing protocol in 2020. [Yes, the verb is missing here, but okay it's some law.... but why?]
> What benefits does the Government point to in response? Next to nothing. [great, lots of detail there]
> The regulation—issued pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976—was proposed by NOAA. [okay we got a headline of a potential reason behind it now, but are rental boats really the culprit in overfishing? Wouldn't it be fishing companies? Why only in 2023? Sounds fishy]
And that's all we get. After 518 words on the topic, the page "goes on" to report on decriminalizing pscyhedelic [sic] plants in some cities.
So.... asking as someone out of the loop... what's this all about in the first place?