Government anti-****, new softwear for catching pervs, and your civil rights

[notherhen40]

I was watching America's most wanted tonight. (show about crime on FOX) and the Florida attorney general was on the podium, touting the state's success with operation orange tree, and the arrest of 126 kiddie **** perveyours. Its a great thing that they caught these creeps, but now here comes the most chilling part......

Catching these pervs, is a great thing. Many parents will sleep soundly now that these idiots are behind bars. But, the way the state of Florida went and caught these guys is just plain wrong!

Using softwear to hackinto a private computer, trace the IP adress, the computer serial number, and the house adress and phone number is just as wrong as the child **** viewers.

Are we so blind, to the hype of kiddie ****, and child molesters that we are willing to surrender our civil rights? Are we so blind, that we let big brother monitor our very emails, our viewing habits, and our phone conversations?

The arguement can be made that these creeps are being caught. However, in reality, we are justifying big brother to intrude in our lives, more than ever before.

The show segment can be found at www.fox.com/americasmostwanted (http://www.fox.com/americasmostwanted)

[Scriptable]

Using softwear to hackinto a private computer, trace the IP adress, the computer serial number, and the house adress and phone number is just as wrong as the child **** viewers.

Its okay if they had a warrant.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I was watching America's most wanted tonight. (show about crime on FOX) and the Florida attorney general was on the podium, touting the state's success with operation orange tree, and the arrest of 126 kiddie **** perveyours. Its a great thing that they caught these creeps, but now here comes the most chilling part......

Catching these pervs, is a great thing. Many parents will sleep soundly now that these idiots are behind bars. But, the way the state of Florida went and caught these guys is just plain wrong!

Using softwear to hackinto a private computer, trace the IP adress, the computer serial number, and the house adress and phone number is just as wrong as the child **** viewers.

Are we so blind, to the hype of kiddie ****, and child molesters that we are willing to surrender our civil rights? Are we so blind, that we let big brother monitor our very emails, our viewing habits, and our phone conversations?

The arguement can be made that these creeps are being caught. However, in reality, we are justifying big brother to intrude in our lives, more than ever before.

The show segment can be found at www.fox.com/americasmostwanted (http://www.fox.com/americasmostwanted)

Americans have had routine Govt surveillance since the first civil rights marches so nothing new here, traffic analysis used often to ID pedos does not infringe on liberties and I would imagine a warrant for intrusion would have to be applied for if an arrest were to be made.

[notherhen40]

Here is the catch and a reply to both of your posts....the state of Florida did not get warrants, and how they caught these people was when they logged on to these web posts, the web posts had software already installed by ICAC, all the user had to due, was click the post..and viola, they get busted.

THEY ONLY GOT WARRANTS TO SEIZE THE COMPUTERS, AND NOT TO INSTALL THE SOFTWARE USED TO CATCH THESE GUYS.

[BigDukaroo]

Do you have something to hide?

[Spezz]

What they did was wrong, no matter if a pedo was caught or not. If they had enough on the guy to get a warrant they should just arrest the dude and confiscate the computer. If they did not have any (or sufficient) info to get a warrant, then they have no right to be installing **** on anyones computer.
If you just go install **** (semi) randomly on peoples pc's you will be infringing on more peoples privacy than catching actual criminals.



Do you have something to hide?
you better be joking

[Scriptable]

Do you have something to hide?
Do you have a live webcam in your toilet?

[Pete031]

I don't see a problem with it. Neither should any law abiding person.

Worlds a better place without them.
Would you say the same if they did it to suspected terrorists?

[sup_tech]

I can see Microsoft doing it but good luck writing and installing this attribute on all available operating systems.

Besides, I don't like when somebody knows too much about me - if I wanted my government to control every aspect of my life I would've moved to North Korea.

[Eztyga]

I don't see a problem with it. Neither should any law abiding person.

Worlds a better place without them.
Would you say the same if they did it to suspected terrorists?

Would you say the same if they informed your SO that you were looking at shemale ****...p-)

[budgie]

Do you have a live webcam in your toilet?

I have a webcam in your toilet...

[Dan2004]

I don't see a problem with it. Neither should any law abiding person.

I'm a law abiding person, and I do have a problem with it. It's a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Say hypothetically, your computer was hacked using this program, and although they didn't find anything illegal, maybe they found something that they didn't like. Which could potentially lead to possible harassment for said material/opinion/whatever.


Would you say the same if they did it to suspected terrorists?

Yes. No question about it. For the same reason as above.

[SBL]

Using softwear to hackinto a private computer, trace the IP adress, the computer serial number, and the house adress and phone number is just as wrong as the child **** viewers.
Spare me.:roll:

[Pete031]

Say hypothetically, your computer was hacked using this program, and although they didn't find anything illegal, maybe they found something that they didn't like. Which could potentially lead to possible harassment for said material/opinion/whatever.



Yes. No question about it. For the same reason as above.


The government is going to harrass me for what I have on my computer even if it is legal?
Get real.
Conspiracy... Fvck yeah.

[Albatross]

All those kiddie **** ****ers are going to skate, now THAT pisses me off.

Its a crapshoot on the way they got them, we dont know about warrants and legality. This is a slippery slope.

[Dan2004]

The government is going to harrass me for what I have on my computer even if it is legal?
Get real.
Conspiracy... Fvck yeah.

I've said all I want to say on that.

I really don't feel like debating.

[Pete031]

I've said all I want to say on that.

I really don't feel like debating.

Ok then....

[brainplay]

If they have the IP to a known kiddie **** site and monitor the traffic then thats not really a big deal and actually very effective and very legal.

If they setup a kiddie **** site themselves, its entrapment. If they bait with a link like hxxp://partyvan.cm/kiddie****ClickHere (http://www.partyvan.com/kiddie****ClickHere) and claim that those that click it are seeking **** then they're just idiots, need to execute their IT division for stupidity, and have never seen or heard a redirect link before.

*note: it keeps trying to make a link out of the fake link...weird.

[Spezz]

I don't see a problem with it. Neither should any law abiding person.

Worlds a better place without them.
Would you say the same if they did it to suspected terrorists?

What is a suspected terrorist? If there's enough info to suspect them, then there's enough proof to get a warrant, end of story. Otherwise we just allow to put every brown, Muslim person under surveillance who types the word "radioactive" in google.
Do you not know what privacy is or do you so blindly trust in you government?
Government are people, and the rules are also made by people, not some perfect know it all better entity. When we start blindly trust the government on anything we create a road to a totalitarian state.

Do you really fail to see the possible abuse that could follow from allowing practices as this. Perhaps you're a bit shortsighted when you only see this from your perspective when you think government isn't going to fvck with you, how about areas where there's more money involved, corporate espionage, blackmail etc? You know, government means used for private interests. Like that has never happened before right?

Also, what is legal today may not be legal tomorrow. And hell, it doesn't have to be illegal not to be desirable to be made public. I'm thinking along the lines of certain ****** preference (the legal kind) or political views. How about getting fired because you attended some commie meeting as a kid in college? Not as likely now as in the past, but still.

And finally, databases get lost or stolen like in the UK. The same info can be abused by terrorist.

The bottom line is: when the government thinks it can disregard your right to privacy to (maybe) catch criminals, you have a police state. Laws are still, rules and rules are made up by people, I don't have to agree with every single one of them even if you do, not to mention that most laws get made without the majority of people knowing about them till after the fact. Something that becomes a law isn't always right either. This becomes especially evident in some totalitarian countries like ...<insert country here>.
Is it a coincidence then that people are generally worse off in countries where there's tighter control on your personal life, personal freedoms and privacy?

And finally if you agree on anything to catch a handful of terrorist, why not get everyone implanted by a tracking/recording device? There you go: an almost fail proof system to catch terrorists.
Nothing to hide right?

[Pete031]

In regards to the Terrorist remark, there are more then just Brown terrorists out there. If you are trying to gather intelligence on cell's and networks, then getting a warrant the moment you get intelligence on a suspect will end up not being as effective as if you can gain information on a larger group.

I work for the Government, and I believe that there can be good times and bad times with them. But I don't believe that they are out to get you or extort you or blackmail you.

In regards to the micro chip comment... Well It would be effective. And do I really care if some Government employee sitting in an office has the ability to see that I have gone camping for the weekenm or to the beer store? Not really.
But it would be excessive.

However, I would rather they monitor everyones computer all the time if it makes it impossible for those disgusting POS perverts to look at and exploit little kids.

[Hollis]

However, I would rather they monitor everyones computer all the time if it makes it impossible for those disgusting POS perverts to look at and exploit little kids.


Excellent point that many fail to recognize. While government may be big, it is not that big. It has to selectively use it resources. It is impossible to monitor all the people and find any meaningful information amongst the nearly infinite data streams that would flow into a intel station on a daily bases.

[hskywalker]

This thread amazes me. You won't get more than 50% support for such things in our communist police state in a free poll.
Another proof democracy has nothing to do with liberty or whatever thing that matters. It just makes the majority happy.:)

[chauncy republicans]

The government is going to harrass me for what I have on my computer even if it is legal?
Get real.
Conspiracy... Fvck yeah.
There is this thing called the Constitution - you know, the highest law of the land, that clearly states this kind of activity is criminal. I wonder if you support all criminals, or just the ones that would abuse their power and herd you around like a farm animal?

A petty royal subject who needs the king to look after his safety would welcome this kind of activity. Citizens of a free nation do not have to prove to their government they are law abiding, however, a subject always has to let the king see how good he has been behaving.

[chauncy republicans]

This thread amazes me. You won't get more than 50% support for such things in our communist police state in a free poll.
Another proof democracy has nothing to do with liberty or whatever thing that matters. It just makes the majority happy.:)
That's exactly right, here in America our freedoms are being stepped on daily, in favor of millions of disgusting little hyenas begging and fighting for scraps off of the oligarchs' plate.

[SBL]

^You must go through a lot of shirts, getting all puffed-up like that.

[sepheronx]

Now that I think about it, the thing that is stopping a lot of these people from posting the ****, is the fact they probably all use the same operating system. Windows!

Windows uses the basis of an API and interface used by (I am lost on this part) a alternative to Unix code and a basis of DOS (which I believe is no longer existent). Now if these people used Linux OS's that range in various forms with too many alternatives in terms of protection software, then hacking into it is more difficult, especially if the people uploading the stuff through a Proxy server in general. So lets say one person uploads the stuff is from UK, but when the authorties are watching you (and lets say the individual uses something like Peer Guardian 2 or something), then you are viewed as some Joe Blow from Vietnam.

I don't know entirely, but if everyone here is worried about security risks and your government watching you, then you can use alternatives. Linux and linux based security software will become a headach for the people watching what you are doing.

But I am glad they cought those CP morons. In this case, if it takes the fact that your privacy is in danger because losers are ruining it for everyone with this crap, then so be it. Not like the government can use anything against you, if you still fall in the constitution.

[Pete031]

There is this thing called the Constitution - you know, the highest law of the land, that clearly states this kind of activity is criminal. I wonder if you support all criminals, or just the ones that would abuse their power and herd you around like a farm animal?

A petty royal subject who needs the king to look after his safety would welcome this kind of activity. Citizens of a free nation do not have to prove to their government they are law abiding, however, a subject always has to let the king see how good he has been behaving.


Yeah, thats it, I support all criminals. You make it sound like the Government is the criminal, I have no problem letting the organisation who was democratically elected by the people to run the country.

As a Soldier I put my faith into them every day. So yeah, I guess I am a subject. Is there something wrong with that??

It's funny how in the suppossed most free country in the world, you still have people like yourself, who have such a distrust in the way the country is run.

The fact that there are people who would rather see pedifiles walk the streets instead of the government surveying them or setting up operations in which to catch them boggles the mind. The fact that you have the means to complain about something like that shows how good you have it.

[chauncy republicans]

If those in power break the law, they are criminals, it doesn't matter who elected them, or what the majority wants.

You enlisted as a civilian. Yes in my opinion there is something wrong with considering yourself a subject, soldiers obviously have to sacrifice some of their civilian freedoms, but we don't have subjects in our armed forces, we have a citizen military comprised of free men. That's one of the reasons why it works so well.

Why is it funny that in the 'most free' society in the world somebody wouldn't trust government? Silly me, I wasn't aware that in a free nation we're supposed to get on our knees for our fearless leaders.

Nobody's insinuating that:
people who would rather see pedifiles walk the streets instead of the government surveying them or setting up operations in which to catch them I want these sick creeps off the streets just as much as anybody else, but the government has clearly defined 'ROE's' that they need abide by.

[brainplay]

Now that I think about it, the thing that is stopping a lot of these people from posting the ****, is the fact they probably all use the same operating system. Windows!

Windows uses the basis of an API and interface used by (I am lost on this part) a alternative to Unix code and a basis of DOS (which I believe is no longer existent). Now if these people used Linux OS's that range in various forms with too many alternatives in terms of protection software, then hacking into it is more difficult, especially if the people uploading the stuff through a Proxy server in general. So lets say one person uploads the stuff is from UK, but when the authorties are watching you (and lets say the individual uses something like Peer Guardian 2 or something), then you are viewed as some Joe Blow from Vietnam.

I don't know entirely, but if everyone here is worried about security risks and your government watching you, then you can use alternatives. Linux and linux based security software will become a headach for the people watching what you are doing.

Proxy's pretty much solve the spying problem. Peer Guardian or TOR are nice for those that are downloading torrents or movies, but aren't completely fullproof. But if you're running through two proxies who wipe their logs daily then the chances of being caught are pretty slim to none even in real time. Most people don't take it that far.

[FabeYond]

Yeah, thats it, I support all criminals. You make it sound like the Government is the criminal, I have no problem letting the organisation who was democratically elected by the people to run the country.

As a Soldier I put my faith into them every day. So yeah, I guess I am a subject. Is there something wrong with that??

It's funny how in the suppossed most free country in the world, you still have people like yourself, who have such a distrust in the way the country is run.

The fact that there are people who would rather see pedifiles walk the streets instead of the government surveying them or setting up operations in which to catch them boggles the mind. The fact that you have the means to complain about something like that shows how good you have it.

I thought the constitution was created to prevent the government from accumulating too much power - which eventually every government does if it is not restricted. It is very reasonable to distrust the government at a certain level, because the government has only one purpose: to control the people. Sadly, some control is needed. But there have to be limits - and I think the constitution should set those limits.

Remember that many of those failed communist states were based on great ideals. It's always about something honorable - fighting child ****, fighting hate speech, equality, etc. But in the end the safest way of life for all people would be to lock everyone in their houses or to simply install a brain implant.

Ask yourself: If it were possible to install such a brain implant and this would erase all criminal thoughts at the time they start to form - would you support implaning all humans with this chip for the greater good? Of course the government would promise you to never abuse that.

Another thing to remember is that while the current government may not misuse the power, one of the next ones will for sure. This is one thing humans should have learned from history.

The constitutions of many states have the aim to restrict government power. If the government tries to meddle with that for whatever reason, this should be fought.

[ayanami_tard]

use proxies,keep all your **** on optical disc,and ALWAYS take off your LAN cable when not using internet(and disable wireless function)

[Pete031]

Ask yourself: If it were possible to install such a brain implant and this would erase all criminal thoughts at the time they start to form - would you support implaning all humans with this chip for the greater good? Of course the government would promise you to never abuse that.



Watch a few movies do you?

Again, the theme here is a common mistrust that you have with your government.
You think that the Government has too much power? Have you ever experienced living in a State that has no Government? Don't think you will like it too much.

But whatever Fellas, Keep living in fear of our elected leaders. I myself will live my life with trust in publicly elected Officials.

[Will Clark]

But whatever Fellas, Keep living in fear of our elected leaders. I myself will live my life with trust in publicly elected Officials.

You're either ignoring example after example of why this is a horrible idea, or you're the ultimate troll. If it's the former, I feel you'll regret this statement before your time on Earth is over.

Healthy distrust of the government is one of the only things slowing down the inevitable erosion of our rights.

[Pete031]

You have just proven my point.
I see the examples, I don't agree with them. Go on and bite the hand that feeds you.

As for calling me the ultimate troll, well, just because I disagree with those who live in a constant fear of their own government fcvking them over, when they have publicly elected them, and the fact I think it is retarded when people like you who have it so good, in the United States, and still find something to bitch about like a little a spoiled fvcking school girl, well yeah call me a troll. Your founding fathers to which you hold so dear would be roling in their graves.

[oswald]

Holy moses, there must be a shortage of tin foil with so much demand for hats around here.

[Will Clark]

You have just proven my point.
I see the examples, I don't agree with them. Go on and bite the hand that feeds you.

As for calling me the ultimate troll, well, just because I disagree with those who live in a constant fear of their own government fcvking them over, when they have publicly elected them, and the fact I think it is retarded when people like you who have it so good, in the United States, and still find something to bitch about like a little a spoiled fvcking school girl, well yeah call me a troll. Your founding fathers to which you hold so dear would be roling in their graves.

How did I in any way prove your point? What point were you even trying to make? What do you mean you see examples and don't agree with them. There are clear examples of politicians abusing their power, many of whom are still in power. Are you not agreeing that they're heinous and constant enough to prove a plethora of abuse? You can take your pick of horrible public officials throughout our history. It is our place to be suspicious of the government, as they often overstep their bounds and unjustly punish (or otherwise harm) those they're supposed to serve.

Many people live in a constant state of fear about the government because time and time again they prove themselves untrustworthy. And news flash, if the government has violated the constitution to do what it wants, then they've proven it. As for electing my own government...I get to cast a vote for 0.5% of congress, the rest of the country is responsible for 99.5%. Like most other people I don't mind my representatives so much as I mind theirs, not to say that I have blind faith in my crop of politicians. Excuse me if I think the erosion of our civil rights is an appropriate subject to bitch about. You took an oath to support and defend the constitution, what happened to that? You'll look the other way so long as we're violating the rights of a pervert? Spoiled people are the ones like you who move us closer to those ****ty countries no one wants to live in because you disregard the past, the constitution, or reason. Yes, I have it comparably good in the United States, and unlike you I'm trying to keep it that way.

Bite the hand that feeds ME? Founders rolling in their graves because I don't have blind faith in the government? Yeah ok, I took the troll bait.

[Pete031]

You're an idiot. You don't have any idea where I am from or what I do.

Anyone who lives in a constant state of fear from the US Government, who is law abiding needs a serious checkup with a mental health professional.

Yes, I think that that the Government should be able to monitor or survey potential criminals, I think that information gathering is an important part in catching criminals, and I don't think that it encroaches on your liberites to do so.

You think some computer geek watchdog will give a fvck if he finds out you wear womens clothing on thursday?

We are talking about aiding the law enforcement officials who keep these disgusting fvcks away from our sons and daughters.

If you think that there is more important issues then the safety and healthy up bringing of our future generations, then you can go ahead and live under fear in your lonely suspicious pseudo community. Like others said, get your tin foil hat.

And to think that I am trolling, just shows me how much of a weirdo you really are.

Nothing is more important then the well being of our children. Nothing.

[Breerman]

Do you have something to hide?
If you dont have anything to hide, why dont you let the government setup cams everywhere in your house including your bedroom so that they can monitor your activities - to ensure that no criminal offenses are taking place?

[Holmes85]

Holy moses, there must be a shortage of tin foil with so much demand for hats around here.

No, I think we're just having a Pandemic of Paranoia.

[Dan2004]

Yes, I think that that the Government should be able to monitor or survey potential criminals, I think that information gathering is an important part in catching criminals, and I don't think that it encroaches on your liberites to do so.

How do you determine who is a "potential criminal?" What criteria must be met in order to be considered a potential criminal?

Everyone's a potential criminal; You, me, everybody. Just having a functioning brain gives one the potential to commit a crime.

[FabeYond]

Again, the theme here is a common mistrust that you have with your government.
You think that the Government has too much power? Have you ever experienced living in a State that has no Government? Don't think you will like it too much.


Please answer the question I asked above: Would you be in favor of implanting computer chips in humans brains to prevent them from thinking any illegal thoughts if the government promises to only use that for good reasons?

I don't get your blind trust in any government when at the same time you mistrust the citizens. Where is your government from? From Alpha Centauri?

If you give people freedom some of them will misuse it (theft, murder, rape, etc.), that's a fact. If you give people power, some of them will misuse it, too. The difference is that people with power can cause a lot more harm if their power is unchecked.

Do you know why communism was created? To let people live in full equality and peace (simply put). A noble goal, yes? And how did that turn out?

It always works like this: You have to give up your freedoms for a noble goal. In Germany, the government wants to censor the internet to filter out child **** sites. A noble goal again, yes? Some politicians are already suggesting that the censorship should also be applied to copyright infringements. Also not that bad, right? Others yet say it should include violent video games and their sites to protect our young people. So maybe you don't play those games and don't have a problem with that but a lot of people have. Combine that with the plans of our government to monitor all internet traffic by it's citizens. You abide the law you have not problem, you say? Of course that's right. That was true for those communist states, as well. And for Nazi Germany and all other totalitarian states.

So I ask you again: How about that brain implant. Would you be in favor if that prevents all crime?

And to answer your question: Of course I don't want to live in a country without a government. That's just as bad as a totalitarian state. But if you had read my post you wouldn't have had to ask that question because I already said that a government is needed to provide some form of control over the population.

[chauncy republicans]

You don't have any idea where I am from or what I do
Yeah REMF...

[oswald]

Yeah REMF...You really are a clueless knob.

[Pete031]

Yeah REMF...


LOL... Wow. Even if I was within Combat Service and Support, that post shows how ignorant you really are.
You have no idea, how valuable these "REMF's" are.

From that I gather that you are in the military? Combat arms right? Combat veteren, you have done your time in the box and in that way you can justify to yourself insulting the many service men and women who help the combat troops fight?

So tell me **** features, you have something against the men and women who provide support to the combat arms?

[Hutz]

Yeah REMF...

That's funny.

[Will Clark]

You're an idiot. You don't have any idea where I am from or what I do.

According to post #27 in this thread I can figure that you are or were a soldier. You were a soldier so you took that oath to support and defend the constitution. According to post #20 you don't mind unreasonable searches if it stops pedophiles, a violation of the 4th amendment. It's not rocket science, you swore to one thing and roll your eyes at it now. Being called an idiot from the guy who pisses on his oath really doesn't bother me.



Anyone who lives in a constant state of fear from the US Government, who is law abiding needs a serious checkup with a mental health professional.


There's a big difference between living in fear of the government (black helicopters and JBT's watching your every move) and being suspicious or un-trusting of it. Don't confuse the two, one is irrational, the other can be easily justified.



Yes, I think that that the Government should be able to monitor or survey potential criminals, I think that information gathering is an important part in catching criminals, and I don't think that it encroaches on your liberites to do so.


We're all potential criminals, if you don't think unreasonable searches encroach on our liberties, then you need to dust off the bill of rights.



We are talking about aiding the law enforcement officials who keep these disgusting fvcks away from our sons and daughters.


We're talking about following the law. If you have a problem with the 4th amendment, by all means write your representative and have them amend the constitution. Until then why don't we play by the very well thought out rules and not let the government do whatever it wants. In a perfect world I would agree with you, but in a perfect world our country wouldn't need to have been founded around supreme laws to protect us from the government.



If you think that there is more important issues then the safety and healthy up bringing of our future generations, then you can go ahead and live under fear in your lonely suspicious pseudo community. Like others said, get your tin foil hat.


Keeping the government in line has everything to do with the safety and health of future generations. And nice touch with the 'lonely pseudo community', go look at any poll concerning trust in government, faith in the president or congress...the majority of the country sides with me on this.




And to think that I am trolling, just shows me how much of a weirdo you really are.


I believed you could be trolling because you were taking dishonorable positions and saying incorrect, inflammatory things. That's usually what trolls do.



Nothing is more important then the well being of our children. Nothing.

Right I know, oaths and freedom be damned.

[Pete031]

Your SA needs some work.

Yes, Oaths and freedoms be damned for the safety of our Children.

[oswald]

FYI, he didn't take an oath to support or defend your constitution. He also doesn't have a dusty Bill of Rights or a fourth amendment.

[Will Clark]

Your SA needs some work.


My mistake, I apologize.

[RECON DOC]

Your SA needs some work.

Yes, Oaths and freedoms be damned for the safety of our Children.



"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Benjamin Franklin

......................

[FabeYond]

Your SA needs some work.

Yes, Oaths and freedoms be damned for the safety of our Children.

I'm not the first to post this, but this sounds a lot like

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler.

[rhino]

Go Pete:)


I'm not the first to post this, but this sounds a lot like

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler.

kind of out of context,since that was his observation on how to make people more comlient vs Pete's argument that perverts should have no place to hide

[FabeYond]

Go Pete:)



kind of out of context,since that was his observation on how to make people more comlient vs Pete's argument that perverts should have no place to hide

Yeah, I phrased that wrong. But it seems like he would fall for something like that.

[Pete031]

Seems like I would fall for something like that? You are bringing up Hitler Quotes? My father is a survivor from NAZI occupied Europe. Lost a lot of family in that conflict.

So, let me get this straight, you would rather that some sick fvck exploit your child by either touching them or viewing them in explicit acts, and this goes out to you to Recon Doc, then encroach on these sick fvcks internet liberties? Is the internet a right? or is it a luxury? Personal computers, are they rights? or are they luxuries?

These are not life saving equipment, they have no bearing on whether you will survive on a day to day basis.

You have to figure out what is important in life. And for the continuation of life.

And Recon Doc, I am not talking about temporary security, I am talking about goverment legislation to ensure that Children don't get taken advantage of by pedifiles.
Nothing in my eyes is more important then that.

[California Joe]

This sh*t doesn't really bother me personally. Maybe it's because my prints are on file with the Government from being a cop, I've been investigated by OPM and the FBI for clearances from working in the DoD, they know every damned thing about me already. It's all on file.

I carried around a CAC with more personal info on it than would be on any proposed National ID. So worrying about my personal liberties being infringed doesn't really register.

[FabeYond]

Seems like I would fall for something like that? You are bringing up Hitler Quotes? My father is a survivor from NAZI occupied Europe. Lost a lot of family in that conflict.


You seem to be the right person to fall for that kind of stuff. Maybe you should actually read the quote and try to understand what it means.



So, let me get this straight, you would rather that some sick fvck exploit your child by either touching them or viewing them in explicit acts, and this goes out to you to Recon Doc, then encroach on these sick fvcks internet liberties? Is the internet a right? or is it a luxury? Personal computers, are they rights? or are they luxuries?


Didn't you say that you want to monitor all potential criminals? That would be all of us. So no, this isn't about the rights of child abusers, this is about the rights of all citizens.



You have to figure out what is important in life. And for the continuation of life.


Yes, and it's damn well important that we don't let the government to what it wants without restriction.



And Recon Doc, I am not talking about temporary security, I am talking about goverment legislation to ensure that Children don't get taken advantage of by pedifiles.
Nothing in my eyes is more important then that.

Yes, and as long as the government promises that to you, you will accept any measure, right?

And while we are at getting things straight: How about you finally answer the question that I have asked you two times already and now a third time:

Would you be in favor of implanting computer chips in humans brains to prevent them from thinking any illegal thoughts if the government promises to only use that for good reasons?

[Pete031]

I already answered that by saying I think you watch too many movies.

But to humour you, no, not in all human brains, but in repeat offenders or those who have been convicted, sure. People who are convicted of ******ly assaulting children in my eyes are nothing to the human race anymore. And should be treated as such.


I don't think the Goverment being percieved to do anything is right. Actions are what is needed.


The last time I checked the Government works for the people, we are not in a dictatorship, and we all pick representatives who we think are right for the job to make the decisions that count.

And as CJ said, if you have nothing to hide, then what is the problem.

And by potential criminals, I don't mean the general populace, buts nice to see that you have such faith in the human race, I mean people who either frequent computer sites which would make LEO suspect them, or those who are affiliants of criminal organisations.

[FabeYond]

I already answered that by saying I think you watch too many movies.
But to humour you, no, not in all human brains, but in repeat offenders or those who have been convicted, sure.


Why not in all people? It could prevent all crime - so why not?




And by potential criminals, I don't mean the general populace, buts nice to see that you have such faith in the human race, I mean people who either frequent computer sites which would make LEO suspect them, or those who are affiliants of criminal organisations.

So then lets make this clear: Would you support the government if it tried to restrict basic rights like free speech for the people, like the censorship policies currently in planning in Germany?

[Pete031]

I would support the Government if they restrict Hate speech. Thats why Mr Phelps is not allowed to go to Canada and picket fallen soldiers funerals.
I think that is great.

Why not all people? Because there is no need to do it, if they are not criminals. But to set up software, which will either 1. deter people from doing it and 2. Catch these people doing it, is fine by me.

I can see what you are getting at. But I think that the government setting up the means to monitor people trying to break the law is fine.
And I think an unhealthy general mistrust in the powers that be is not the way to live your life.

[FabeYond]

I would support the Government if they restrict Hate speech. Thats why Mr Phelps is not allowed to go to Canada and picket fallen soldiers funerals.
I think that is great.


That is another problem. I don't like hate speech but I support it's right to exist in the form of free spech anyway. Where I live, in Germany, it's already banned and I don't think it helps because the hate doesn't go away that way and you cannot counter their arguments because you don't even know when or where they gather and try to recruit more people for their cause. Banning that will only give us a better feeling because we think it is not there.



Why not all people? Because there is no need to do it, if they are not criminals. But to set up software, which will either 1. deter people from doing it and 2. Catch these people doing it, is fine by me.


I can see what you are getting at. But I think that the government setting up the means to monitor people trying to break the law is fine.
And I think an unhealthy general mistrust in the powers that be is not the way to live your life.

As long as the government doesn't act against the constitution im fine with that. The constitutions of our countries are there for a reason, because governments are staffed by human beings and some of them will misuse that power. This has happened again and again through history. And it doesn't even have to be evil people. I think that many people in the government of the German Democratic Republic believed in their ways. They believed that controlling people, minitoring them, etc. was a neccessary action for the greater good. But you have to remind yourself that while the current government maybe a benevolent one (there have been benevolent kings in the past, as well), eventuelly there will be a bad one. This also has happened again and again. And I think people should not forget that.

If you look at Germany and its censorship laws you can see that the first proposal was directed against child ****ography. Our miniter of justice made clear that under no circumstances should that be applied to anything else. Some weeks later the same minister said the censorship could be expanded to include copyright violations. Even later some other politician suggestes everything related to violent online games should be included, as well. And yet another one wants to filter out political websites of certain kinds. So you can see how this progresses onwards. There are a lot of things that politicians are willing to do once the gate is open. That is why I think we should fight all government proposals that try to lift the restriction imposed on the government.

[brainplay]

Well we've got two problems here really.

1. The current methods used are not illegal and aren't a violation of the constitution. Hence, Will Clark's arguements are pretty moot.

2. "For the children" is a standard knee jerk enducing phrase often used to push more aggressive legislation through for various monitoring practices and often set precedents to expand those practices into areas such as political beliefs, firearms, or ****** preferences (if you're gay, les, trans). So Pete031's arguement is short sighted and fairly dangerous.

As to the government policies saving our lives...well not really. If its popular its going to pass, regardless of whether its really effective or not. Having worked with and in CPS in the past I can tell you half of the policies are bull. Innocence isn't really that important. Hell, 90% of the time we were used as a vicious tool against a spouse starting divorce proceedings. You're name is still going to be in the database as having been investigated. Results are of course confidential. Oh a job heard a rumor and is asking for confirmation? Cheers you closet pedo! :backhand:

[RECON DOC]

=Pete031;4208065]Seems like I would fall for something like that? You are bringing up Hitler Quotes? My father is a survivor from NAZI occupied Europe. Lost a lot of family in that conflict.

I'm sorry to here of your familys loss Pete. But I believe the point that they were trying to make, is that the nazi party slowly encroached on the civil liberties of the German people to the point that they had no choice but to submit totaly to the horror he was able to perpetrate because of their removal.


So, let me get this straight, you would rather that some sick fvck exploit your child by either touching them or viewing them in explicit acts, and this goes out to you to Recon Doc, then encroach on these sick fvcks internet liberties?

Let's not twist the meaning of peoples words here Pete.
Frankly, I would be elated to see these scumbags thrown into a cell with a big hairy ape and raped nearly to death, then put through a meat grinder feet first so they can enjoy the show, and then feed them to pigs. I would cheer and shout till I lost my voice.
But only AFTER due process of the law as stated in the Constitution of the United States.
The Fourth Amendment is still the law of the land here in the U.S. and for good reason.
To protect EVERYONE from ILLEGAL search and seizure by the government.



Is the internet a right? or is it a luxury? Personal computers, are they rights? or are they luxuries?

IMHO It is a Right, at least they still are for the time being here in the States. This falls under the catagory of "Life, Liberty and The Persuit of Happiness" If persons are able to attain these, then they have every right to the enjoyment of these if they are able to attain them and use them, as long as they do so without breaking the law of the land.


These are not life saving equipment, they have no bearing on whether you will survive on a day to day basis.

In countless instances they can be, and are life saving, and have tremendous bearing on the survival of individuals that use them in the persuit of their employment every day. The free use of the internet, without a doubt, effects their survival on a day to day basis.


You have to figure out what is important in life. And for the continuation of life.

To me, the defense of our Constitution is paramount. I did take an Oath to protect it. I take that Oath very seriously because I know it is there to protect every law abiding citizen from tyrannical rule. All threats foreign and domestic.
I have a daughter, and one day there could be grand children. Nothing is more important to me than their safety and well being. Taking away their Civil Liberties because of a handfull of scumbags is not the answer and never will be.



And Recon Doc, I am not talking about temporary security, I am talking about goverment legislation to ensure that Children don't get taken advantage of by pedifiles. Nothing in my eyes is more important then that.

It will only be an elusion of security, a temporary fix. These bastards will never be completely stopped by this legislation, they will find other avenues because they have a sick need. They'll be pushed back into the shadows by it and resort back to playgrounds and shoolyards and shopping malls or any other place they can find a victim as they always have. They will not stop because they cannot freely brouse the web.
They will certainly catch a few, but only a small fraction, and the stupid ones at that. Not that their not worth catching, they are.
But this comes at the cost of PERMANENTLY removing the Civil Liberties of an entire nation. It doesn't balance out.

Due Process of the Laws in our Constitution will protect us better than knee-jerk, panic driven legislation.
One that will not only be innefective in catching scumbag perve's to the degree they propose, but infringes on the privacy of every Law Abiding Citizen, by making every one of them suspected criminals before the fact.

Without Civil Rights, the government can and assuredly will run amok.
It smacks of dictatorship.

It doesn't wash with me.

[Pete031]

I don't find it knee jerk at all. The internet has been main stream for what, 15 years now?? Since the beginning this has been an issue. So this isin't some problem that has just sprung up.

The 4th Amendment is everything to you and thats fine. But it is an amendment. Maybe it is time for another. I don't see this government plan an end to your rights as an American Citizen.

[Dan2004]

I don't find it knee jerk at all. The internet has been main stream for what, 15 years now?? Since the beginning this has been an issue. So this isin't some problem that has just sprung up.

The 4th Amendment is everything to you and thats fine. But it is an amendment. Maybe it is time for another. I don't see this government plan an end to your rights as an American Citizen.

Well, if you don't mind amending the Fourth to try and combat kiddie-fiddlers, you might as well amend the First. Hell, do away with the Fifth and Sixth while we're at it. For the children, right? :roll:

[rhino]

seems like there are no issue this day that would not draw polarized views

I get peoples views that personal freedoms should be cherrished, defended and fought for at all costs

I understand that you understand the kind of charged emotions the issue of children safety brings to those that have kids, or those that consider family life somewhat more important then other things in life

seems, at least to me, that we have, as society, have reached an apex when it comes to issues such as personal freedoms vs childs safety, which way will it go?

is the society going to reconsider and turn, somewhat away from the idividuals right to place kids first? is it fair for an individual adult, with breth of life experiences, to be placed first before a childs need to live in a secure environment? somehow it seems rather destructive, from a species point of view

[Pete031]

Well, if you don't mind amending the Fourth to try and combat kiddie-fiddlers, you might as well amend the First. Hell, do away with the Fifth and Sixth while we're at it. For the children, right? :roll:


Did I say that? Yes for the children. Keep rolling your eyes...

[Vince S]

I wonder what's the big fuss over this "software", it's been used for a while and even here in Canada. Nothing new.

In the past (and to this day it's still used), police wiretaped phones. Same technique being used here but on a computer.

[Gat0r]

Pretty sad listening to Pete's worship of leviathan, the protector of us all, because we know from history that government's utmost concern is the well-being of the people, not to control others and benefit themselves. It doesn't take much to search around on the internet weekly to find some new abhorant violation of private property or individual rights. Just recently The Department of Justice confiscated $30 million worth of earnings that individuals accumulated on online poker websites. A person can't even voluntarily play online poker anymore!

Looks like the U.S. Government screwed over the bondholders of Chrystler and GM, many of whom were part of a pension plan for teachers. They received 1/3rd of the funds obligated to them but the UAW a priviliged union with high level connections to the Obama Aministration ended up getting the largest chunk, i'm sure that was just government action insuring the well being of the people right?

You might roles your eyes at this but Judge Andrew Napolitano has a show on foxnews.com every week in which they bring to light specific policys that are encroaching on our rights.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20188

Criminality is an unfortunate part of society, its something that always has and always will be, those who violate others rights must pay for their actions, but to turn to an elected group of criminals to do more to protect us from bad guys will only lead to further desintigration of personal liberties. Murders, Rape, and Bernie Maddoff's will continue to happen. Once an interventionalist attitude is adopted it turns into a self-feeding spiral, the last round of laws and regulations proved inadequate which in turn "justifies" in the minds of those in power that more layers are needed, heck look at the economic meltdown at present. There are ten's of thousands of pages of regulations on business's and the market, but the regulations themselves create the moral hazards, the government social engineering, etc.. that caused the fiasco in the first place, yeah lets give the Federal Reserve even more power to regulate they only created the housing bubble in the first place!

This whole "To protect the children" reasoning has been used before its nothing new its quite obvious where this is leading us.

I'd venture to say that we do have a dictatorship here. The fact that the Republican and Democratic parties have systematically shut out any 3rd party from participating in the political process by re-writting laws seems dictorial to me. With the end of the Civil war Lincoln solidified the Central Federal Governments supreme dominance over states rights, and we have now become dependent on it for our education, what we can eat, what we smoke or drink, energy, and the list goes on.

Don't be so naive to think that a centralized group of powerful people have your interests on the top of the list.

[Pete031]

Pretty sad Gat0r that you have no faith in your own government.

[Dan2004]

Pretty sad Gat0r that you have no faith in your own government.

At this point in time, why should any American have any faith whatsoever in these people?

Tell me 3 things that the US govt has done right in the last 20 years.

[rhino]

pretty sad that any procative attempt to protect those that cant protect themselves is greated with distrust and a cryout of infringment on individuals rights, even before it has a chance to be tried in the courts of law, after all thats what the whole judicial system is about, right

[Pete031]

Do you have food on your table?
Do you Drive a car?
Are you healthy?

Thats more then a lot of the world can say.


If you don't like it, why do you stay?

[Holmes85]

Next the government will be listening in on our phone calls. Oh wait a minute they already did that one. Silly me.

[FabeYond]

seems, at least to me, that we have, as society, have reached an apex when it comes to issues such as personal freedoms vs childs safety, which way will it go?


Why do you think so? Because there is a lot of talk about that at the moment? That's why I used the Hitler quote - to show that governments have used that argument before. So people should be wary of that. In Germany they are not even shy about their real intentions with that stuff.



Do you have food on your table?
Do you Drive a car?
Are you healthy?

Thats more then a lot of the world can say.


If you don't like it, why do you stay?

You know that the citizens of the GDR would have answered that questions with a yes, right? Ok, not everyone had a car but they had food and were healthy. Would you have asked them the same question?

[Gat0r]

Do you have food on your table?
Do you Drive a car?
Are you healthy?

Thats more then a lot of the world can say.


If you don't like it, why do you stay?

We have been living in a bubble of false prosperity for several decades, the fact the we have the worlds rerserve currency has allowed us to get it away with it for so long. Our industrial base has been destroyed hence our massive debt, our phony economy survives on the consumer, well that consumer is broke, shopping malls are closing and a commercial real estate bubble could be bursting soon. Despite all of that our government gets larger year after year, they spend more money we don't have just to kick the day of reckoning down the road a little further.

Other countries such as China are rapidly manuvering themselves for life after American consumerism. To answer you're question we are going to find out what it feels like to be like "a lot of the world."

[Pete031]

You know that the citizens of the GDR would have answered that questions with a yes, right? Ok, not everyone had a car but they had food and were healthy. Would you have asked them the same question?


Yes but they would have been forced to. In the US it is a reality. You can't compare the two.

[FabeYond]

Yes but they would have been forced to. In the US it is a reality. You can't compare the two.

In the GDR they were generally healthy and had food and some had cars. So you could ask them the same questions and you would get truthful answers.

[Pete031]

Yeah, but it wouldn't have mattered because they would be forced to say whatever. You can't compare a Country under direct control of the USSR to the Modern day USA.

[FabeYond]

Yeah, but it wouldn't have mattered because they would be forced to say whatever. You can't compare a Country under direct control of the USSR to the Modern day USA.

Then I don't understand why you asked those questions. I thought you wanted to say that people should be happy that they are healthy and have food.

[Pete031]

If you are comparing The USA to East Germany during the cold war, Do you want me to list, reasons why the two countries are different?

I was asked what the United States had done right in the past 20 years, I think that the majority of citizens are doing just fine.
They don't have a Giant Communist country to answer to, they don't live behind a wall, They weren't forced to live in a communist country while their relatives were sent to a democratic one.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but Government coming up with new legislation to monitor and catch people who watch child **** is a long way from living behind the Iron Curtain.

[FabeYond]

If you are comparing The USA to East Germany during the cold war, Do you want me to list, reasons why the two countries are different?


No, I just wanted to know why you asked that questions as if you wanted to imply that people who are healthy and have food have no reason to complain.



I can see the point you are trying to make, but Government coming up with new legislation to monitor and catch people who watch child **** is a long way from living behind the Iron Curtain.

True, but the more rights the government takes away, the harder it will be for the people to do something about it should the government try to turn the country into a police state. Imagine the government wanted to record all communication and open all mail (of all citizens of course). Would you be against it? Because if you do no wrong you wouldn't have to fear anything, right?

[GoBlue95]

Network Security=ain't **** getting hacked. Learn it. Live it.

[3rdMillhouse]

Ceiling "Big Brother" watching you masturbate. Beware.

[Pete031]

No, I just wanted to know why you asked that questions as if you wanted to imply that people who are healthy and have food have no reason to complain.



True, but the more rights the government takes away, the harder it will be for the people to do something about it should the government try to turn the country into a police state. Imagine the government wanted to record all communication and open all mail (of all citizens of course). Would you be against it? Because if you do no wrong you wouldn't have to fear anything, right?


Dude, you keep asking me the same question over and over again. What if, what if, what if.
Brain implants, Communist East Germany..... What if Aliens came down and stole the worlds cheese supply, what then.

You can what if this sh1t all day. I will stick to my guns, and say. Government using software, to monitor crimes such as Child ****ography is fine with me.

[Holmes85]

You folks are officially way off topic now, at least from my point of view.:|

[Pete031]

You folks are officially way off topic now, at least from my point of view.:|


Exactly.....

[IraGlacialis]

You folks are officially way off topic now, at least from my point of view.:|
Maybe they should just agree to disagree, as neither side is going to back down.

I'm on the fence on this issue. I personally don't have anything to hide and understand the need for security (personally would love for American cities to have the type of extensive video surveilance that London has).
But I do understand the concept of a slippery slope, especially when in gets into the private realm like wiretapping and internet monitoring. Also, the government may be using it in pure ways and may keep it just for that purpose. However, as the government is made up of people, there is chance such a system may be abused for petty reasons (partisanship for example).
*shrugs*
I'm also not well-versed enough in either computor science or personal rights to make an informed stance.

[FabeYond]

Maybe they should just agree to disagree, as neither side is going to back down.

I'm on the fence on this issue. I personally don't have anything to hide and understand the need for security (personally would love for American cities to have the type of extensive video surveilance that London has).
But I do understand the concept of a slippery slope, especially when in gets into the private realm like wiretapping and internet monitoring. Also, the government may be using it in pure ways and may keep it just for that purpose. However, as the government is made up of people, there is chance such a system may be abused for petty reasons (partisanship for example).
*shrugs*
I'm also not well-versed enough in either computor science or personal rights to make an informed stance.

I had the same view on these things as Pete not so long ago. The behaviour of my government (Germany) has changed that unfortunately.

[IraGlacialis]

I had the same view on these things as Pete not so long ago. The behaviour of my government (Germany) has changed that unfortunately.Yet have you considered that, alike (in a sense) as they are, the governments of the US and Germany be different enough in the the way that they are framed that this issue takes a different path in my country (for better or worse (hopefully better)) than it did/does in yours?

[FabeYond]

Yet have you considered that, alike (in a sense) as they are, the governments of the US and Germany be different enough in the the way that they are framed that this issue takes a different path in my country (for better or worse (hopefully better)) than it did/does in yours?

Of course it could. I'm debating a general approach here. That is: You should not let the government lift the restrictions imposed on it.

[IraGlacialis]

Of course it could. I'm debating a general approach here. That is: You should not let the government lift the restrictions imposed on it.Fair enough.

Though, as gradual as slippery slopes may be, I am sure that it would take a very gradual (and I am putting a huge emphasis on the "very") slope before any of the 10 Bill of Rights are directly messed with, and not just interpreted (as with the current debate about the 2nd Amendment). It would mean political suicide for any congressman who suggests it and a mob on the steps of Capitol Hill.
...
Then again, I sometimes wonder about the new generation; I wonder about their aptitude in the realm of political science/current events, and I wonder if they actually care what goes on in thier government and around them in general (Obamania be damned).
If they are truly as apathetic as some of the older generation bemoans that they are, then that slippery slope is not such a far fetched idea.
And, frankly, a purposely blind and apathetic populace deserves to be enslaved. I'll make sure I get on top.

[FabeYond]

Fair enough.

Though, as gradual as slippery slopes may be, I am sure that it would take a very gradual (and I am putting a huge emphasis on the "very") slope before any of the 10 Bill of Rights are directly messed with, and not just interpreted (as with the current debate about the 2nd Amendment). It would mean political suicide for any congressman who suggests it and a mob on the steps of Capitol Hill.


It mostly works like this: The government wants to ban guns (I'm talking about Germany here). They know there will be outrage but they propose something to that effect anyway. After the outrage they will move backwards and announce that they only want to impose some restriction on gun owners. So some people are still angry but most think that they got lucky. That's called 'Salamitaktik' (salami slicing) in Germany. Proceeding in small steps.


Our government has passed a law that calls for the collection of all communication data of all citizens to be used by the government at will, without a warrant. This law should help fight terrorism. Our constitutional court has issued a preliminary injunction in this case until a decision is made. After that our minister said that judges shouldn't be allowed to meddle with laws and our government made an announcement that our constitutional court isn't really allowed to decide on that issue, it should be the EU court which decides about it. The issue is still open at present. So if this goes through, the government will be able to collect a lot of data about us. It can know what individual persons think and who will be most opposed to what. I don't think our current government will turn the country into a second GDR but who is to say that a future government won't with powers like these?

So in the US it's different. I know. I like the US constitution a little bit better and the founders of the US had to fight for their freedom and I suspect that education in the US places a greater importance on that events than in Germany. So it's probably harder in the US to pull off. But I think it has been tried in some cases, like with some of Bushs measures to fight terrorism. But we will see. I don't really think that something like in Germany would be happening in the US in the near future. But if people would be ok with sacrificing freedom for security (even if it's against the constitution) it can happen.




Then again, I sometimes wonder about the new generation; I wonder about their aptitude in the realm of political science/current events, and I wonder if they actually care what goes on in thier government and around them in general (Obamania be damned).
If they are truly as apathetic as some of the older generation bemoans that they are, then that slippery slope is not such a far fetched idea.
And, frankly, a purposely blind and apathetic populace deserves to be enslaved. I'll make sure I get on top.

I was never that much interested in politics. But this has changed because our governments gradually started to piss me off and it's getting worse.