Yes, as a propaganda tactic it is a dilution of rights. When real rights, such as the freedom of speech, are equated to and ethically classed with a "right" to the 'net, the meaning and value of real rights are reduced and diminished.
Speech is a powerful thing. Effacing the symbol erodes reality in the minds of many people.
Our forefathers fought, suffered and died for those rights. But now, much, if not most of the population believes that civil liberties are the bane of society -- until they are personally arrested, beaten or shot by the blue gang.
I don't understand why anyone would carry that kind of cash, but even more so why anyone would have a conversation with a detaining or arresting officer.
The only topic of discussion involved in a traffic stop is the traffic stop. Not where you are going or why. Not what your job is, or how much money you have with your. Nor how much you make.
All of these and more, are cops fishing for a reason to search, seize, and or arrest the person they have stopped. This guy set himself up when he said he had $2K with him. Stupidity may not be a crime on the books, but cops will make it one on the street, and be enforcement, prosecutor and judge all rolled into one.
The more "rights" there are, the less any of them matter. There is a right to the safety of life and limb from one's government. There is a right to the freedom of speech.
There is no right to have a road built in front of one's house. Having a general agreement amongst the populace and elected officials that a road is probably a good idea, is a privilege, not a right. This I discovered through trying to have a road built in front of my driveway as well as that of others.
He is a Luddite. Terrified of what he can not comprehend.
He is not the problem. A political system which propagandizes one thing, and then creates a power structure to do the opposite is the problem. That along with a populace which doesn't seem to remember promises made and broken from one second to the next.
I wrote a system that was still running after three decades (ca 1980,) and for all I know may be celebrating its 35th bday. It did everything the enduser wanted, was flexible, and was built to feed SAS (Statistical Analysis System) as well as produce the reports and graphs needed. The last I heard the only difficult was in getting parts and 5 1/4" diskettes.
There were mainframe systems built in the '60s 1999 whose only problem was that they had to undergo Y2K remediation.
The cost of replacing the software just to keep up with the hardware would be incredible, would stall progress where needed, and would stultify programmer analysts. It is far more cost efficient to write emulators so the old software will run.
This is true for a lot of fields as well as computing. My father told me that many locomotive lathes that had been built during the civil war were still running. These things were so big that a man could had to stand in the lathe pan to adjust the machine.
Why replace something that is working well when that capital can be spent on something worth improving. And yes, there are Amiga OS emulators so that even if the hardware can't be directly replaced, an Amiga environment can be substituted to run the old software.
Google (and the net in general) really have little choice before they aew subject to an untold number of foolish laws.
If the French want the right to be forgotten, then the whole country should be forgotten from every search engine. This kind of thing worked with a special tax in Germany, and it will work everywhere else.
I take it you haven't noticed any right wing Hollywood types espousing smaller government and lower taxes while leaching the taxpayers. And not just Hollywood. This has become a standard practice for for mid to large size business.
Can't really blame Obama, as this kind of nonsense has been going on for as long as governments exist. As a recent, but pre-Obama occurrence, I observed Federal IT staff knowingly violate HIPPA security requirements because it saved time and money.
Just to prove your point a little more strongly, it was Richard Nixon who declared war on drugs.
The Feds began actually began their undeclared war on narcotics in 1914 with the passage of the Harrison Narcotic Tax act. A 101 years of failure for everyone except those who profit by it -- the unlawful criminals and the lawful ones.