Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


New internet censorship bill with even more exploitative name.

   
What exactly is your argument there Agricolus? Because bad things happened in the past we should be prepared to give up essential freedoms? That doesn't fly, and the founding fathers would be mortified at the idea. This isn't a new idea that people have a right to due process, this is a founding cornerstone of the US government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UmbreonMessiah View Post
No, no you are not "just askin'." You're being a Conservative troll,
Now who's trolling?

Nothing he said was left or right, and the issue of internet censorship/privacy is bipartisan in both it's support and it's opposition. It crosses party and ideological lines all over the place so don't try to paint this as a conservative thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
What exactly is your argument there Agricolus? [/URL].
Argument? Moi? No, just askin'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
Because bad things happened in the past we should be prepared to give up essential freedoms? [/URL].
Forgive my reference to Rome. It wasn't important that it's happened in the past - unless you believe yesterday's paper, or the day before. It's been happening for a long, long time, and has to stop. Besides, isn't the fact that some bad things have happened in the past, the reason for founding a new ideology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
This isn't a new idea that people have a right to due process, this is a founding cornerstone of the US government.
ABSOLUTELY! And a good way to gather enough evidence, irrefutible in its nature, abundant in quantity, to bring about not only a fair, but thorough trial, is through the use of technology that they never would have imagined, no?

...just askin'...

If you want to participate in a discussion of this type on these forums, I'd recommend you lose the disingenuous tone.

Otherwise, folks, let's not feed this troll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post
ABSOLUTELY! And a good way to gather enough evidence, irrefutible in its nature, abundant in quantity, to bring about not only a fair, but thorough trial, is through the use of technology that they never would have imagined, no?
Read the bill. It basically calls for ISPs to keep all of a customer's search history for up to a year and a half that the government can then access whenever it asks, no warrants needed. That is why is suspends due process, and why it is a terrible idea.

The problem with "you shouldn't have aproblem with it if you aren't breaking the law" is that people *do* have a problem with it who are not breaking the law. Our last state's attourney in kansas went on a fishing expedition trying to get records from abortion doctors on *all* their patients claiming he was looking for patterns of child molestation by parents. The fact that he campaigned for teh position as being staunchly anti abortion? No that had nothing to do with it... eventually he was not only voted out of office but disbarred, but it remains a prime example of a perfectly obvious fact- people do have something to hide, even when they are not breaking the law. Maybe I don't think my employer should know that I enjoy being flogged by my wife, maybe the police don't need to know I am in a forum for crossdressing midgets. (both hypothetical examples, at least as far as anyone here knows...) Niether is against the law. Either could be potentially very bad to be revealed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post
You know, I may sound like an old fogey here - actually, the dead giveaway is that most people don't use the word 'fogey' anymore. But back in the day (another fogeyism), child abusers were handled by the people. Not necessarily lynch mobs, mind ya, but through social ostracism and even, at times, a little bar room violence. Then, the police would look the other way. Now, it's the vigilante who is considered the greatest perpetrator, if he indeed ever gets the chance to do something.

I'm not suggesting such a violent answer to such a heinous crime... thinking... thinking.... well, maybe I am. The usual response is "Well, what if he's really innocent?" Puppy crap. People know.

That's getting off subject, but it has a tie. Although I think we should use all weapons available in such a battle, there are those who will jump at the chance to use such information for personal gain. A question we should ask ourselves is,

"Would such a tactic as implementing a system that would protect youth from being emotionally scarred for life, having their very dignity taken from them by such an animal, be worth the loss of personal freedoms that: we may not even realize are gone; seldom use; and shouldn't bother you if you are not committing a crime?"

Just askin', is all...
Ok, I don't really read this forum for anything but, uh, the fun of seeing people bicker, but I got to say something. This is unaccaptable, and I have reported the post for what's essentially inciting to violence against suspected badguys. This is not ok, not matter how bad the guy might be...

Let me preface what I am about to say by letting you all know that I am a male victim of sexual abuse.

I do NOT think that letting the government spy on people without a warrant is ever a good idea. Sure, there are internet pedophiles out there who look at pictures of young children being molested. The sad fact of the matter is that trusted authority figures are far more likely to be doing the molesting and picture taking. Babysitters, coaches, doctors, uncles, aunts, older siblings, clergy, are all far more likely to molest a child that some predator driving by and snatching a kid from the playground.

As far as the comment about "people just know." When I was in middle school people just "knew" I was gay. I got beat up, harassed, threatened, and in one case my head put a dent in a locker because people "knew" I was gay. Fun fact: I am not gay, or even bisexual. Now let me see if I can imagine that people "know" I am a pedophile. Cops look the other way, eventual I would come to bodily harm, perhaps even be accused openly of molesting a child. Perhaps even be accused by a child (3% of reported sexual abuse cases are wrongful convictions).

The poster seemed to give omniscient knowledge to a community.

Back to privacy: I don't want someone looking in my window. You might be different(different strokes for different folks). I especially dont want a cop looking in my window. I don't even want a cop to be behind my car, not because I am doing something wrong or plan to, because I don't like being watched.

Optimal solution:

Get all those people that enjoy being watched... and the people that have a compulsion to do so together... leave the rest of us alone.

There's a cartoon in there somewhere I think...

Thankfully it does appear that the bill isn't going anywhere, if it does ever get traction it'll be a problem tho.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status