Perhaps it should be, but the courts have not agreed. See Pena v. Los Angeles for an example of an appellate case that rejected this argument. It found that a "police power" exception to the takings clause applies in such cases.
Many retail sites have a "find a nearby" store function. They often outsource this to a third party...for something as silly as geolocation and geographical lookups. This third party is the one that offers its services for a discount but also siphons up your location data to sell.
I think the user raises valid concerns that should be discussed.
Freenet (~2000) did something similar. They distributed and cached content across all participating nodes. Users were storing encrypted fragments of other's data. It was notorious for distributing illegal content.
I recall that at the time, users were concerned about illegal content winding up on their computers - even if they weren't directly - knowingly - downloading those resources.
As I looked a little deeper just now, I'm discovering that courts have generally been lenient on unknowing participants - that intent and knowledge do matter. It's still a legal grey area (from some basic research I just did - maybe someone else can add to this).
I would still be concerned about a corrupt agency (in some fascist environment) pressing charges or insinuating illegal activity regardless of intent.
It's interesting how effectively CP laws killed anonymity and free speech tools. All it takes is one bad actor (and a compliant media apparatus that will parrot "known for hosting CP" on command).
Shit, HR doesn't even exist to protect the company sometimes. Sometimes they get so cancerous that they start to operate as if the company works for them.
Hence my megacorp's most recent CEO fired the CPO, and hired a long time former company employee with no HR background to go clean house of the infestation of Vice-Vice-Vice-Vice-Vice-Vice-Vice-Vice Presidents in HR.
Ultimately it's the board of directors' call. Sometimes they are oblivious to how much HR undermines the company by bringing in unnecessary distractions and making poor hiring decisions. Like much else, it's subject to momentum.
Rejecting any care or duty towards one's own society is a very modern, very extreme viewpoint. And I don't think it bodes well for societies where it prevails.
Just like every person dies, so does every society (no matter where you draw the lines around it). We can't justify what we do solely based on survival. What's worth doing has to be worth doing for its own sake, here and now. That we are around to do things in the future, doesn't matter if nothing is worth doing.
Put in a catchier way, if nothing is worth dying for, then nothing is worth living for either.
I think you'll find this is a very old viewpoint. As is the smear that we reject any care or duty for society. "This may seem harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it."
What transit systems in America are getting rid of cards?
NYC is the most recent that I am aware that is in a payment system transition, but the new system has physical cards you can buy and reload to use with the new tap to pay system.
That was not my point entirely; my point that citing prices from 2000s and comparing with modern ones |(with indexing about 2x times), regardless of underling reason is either a demonstration of lazyness or innumeracy, or even worse - an attempt to manipulate.
reply