Maybe I’m not getting your highway example. You’re paying tax to the buyer’s state, and the highway is at least partially in that state. Are you saying that you should have to pay taxes to every state that the highway goes through?
Yes, it’s the shipping address. So I guess you could open a P.O. box in one of these states, have it shipped there, then go pick it up… but I think that’ll be a little more expensive than just paying the taxes.
Seriously though, your example sounds like exactly the situation that software would handle much better than a human. In fact, I bet that human would just look it up using gasp software.
The logic here is pretty faulty. Just because two kids weren’t deterred doesn’t mean that many others weren’t. No system is every going to be perfect, there will always be something that falls through the cracks. What this showed was that those who decide to not be deterred will be caught, and maybe that will deter even more people in the future. Think about if we didn’t have this surveillance, they probably would have gotten away with it. Then what happens? Do they attack again? Do others attack now that they know they can get away with it? Honestly, I don’t like that we’re constantly under surveillance, I think it is an invasion of our privacy, but unfortunately I think this went a long way to show that it does work.
