[tor-talk] washingtonpost.com: In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are

[Joe Btfsplk]

On 7/6/2014 3:39 PM, C B wrote:
> Not as many live here as vacation here. A very large number of the rich and powerful visit. And as the first in the nation primary, every Presidential candidate spends a lot of time here. Yes it is often hard to get laws against things because politicians do not want to get caught. We recently outlawed using cellphones in a very restrictive law that I certainly hope is repealed before it goes into effect next year. We do not require seat belts or motor cycle helmets, but have fairly widespread use of each. But as to privacy we are very strict. Some of the world's experts on privacy live here too.
>   
New Hampshire has its elected officials, like any other state.  So, I 
can't image the elected ones are behind the increased privacy. Unless NH 
politicians are so far "ahead of the curve" compared to politicians in 
other states?
Or, there could be a "secret society" that largely runs NH & wants 
better privacy?

Surely, NH doesn't have any more powerful visitors than say, 
Connecticut, Hawaii, Washington DC or several others?

"Don't require seat belts?"  Kinda behind times, isn't it?  Does NH 
allow "new fangled motorized automobiles" on the streets? :D Aren't seat 
belts a federal requirement, or if not, doesn't a state choosing not to 
require them, lose a whole lot of federal funding? "New Hampshire - The 
Live Fast & Die Hard State."...  hee-hee