jump to navigation

NOTE: The spam filter is being unusually aggressive. If you comment does not immediately appear, it has simply been placed in moderation and I will approve it as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.

"Murphy was an optimist!"

Orwell June 30, 2006 11:31 am

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : News, Of Interest, Politics, Touchy Subjects, United States
, trackback

1984

…could require Internet providers and social-networking sites to record for a fixed time, perhaps one or two years, which IP address is assigned to which user. The other would be far broader, requiring companies to record data such as the identities of e-mail correspondents, logs of who sent and received instant messages (but not the content of those communications), and the addresses of Web pages visited.

Comcast announced that it will begin to retain logs that map IP addresses to user identities for 180 days, up from its current policy of 31 days. (The company stressed that it does not record information such as "Internet use or Web surfing habits.") [Source]

Let me ask you something. This is done under the guise of protecting children from child pornographers.

Barton said, adding that it was time to "protect our children against these despicable child predators that are on the loose right now in our land."

They are now adding that emotional word "terrorism" into play.

it would aid in terrorism investigations as well

Child porn and terrorism are words that get an emotional response from the public while simultaneously causing the public to shield their eyes because they would rather be ignorant than look at the problem. So my question is is there really a problem or are we being played to give up our liberties? There might a problem. I don’t know. But it could also be that we are spending billions and giving up the freedoms that founded our country for something negligible. Yes, even if one child is hurt it is not a negligible problem but if the numbers are small then our government’s response is not just inappropriate but manipulative in that they say they are doing one thing (attacking child porn) and doing another (intentially eroding our freedoms).

Just because someone yells fire in a theatre doesn’t mean we should blindly run from the building. Is there smoke? Are we sheep?

Child pornography existed long before the Internet. Our government is treating a symptom and not the problem which gives credence to a potential hidden agenda. Tracking the viewers of child porn does nothing to stop the photographer and distributor.

The Internet hype has made us afraid to take pictures of our children. I know I have failed to click the shutter because of it. We should be able to record their childhood without fear. Natural is not porn.

Comments after advertisement

Comments»

no comments yet - be the first?


trackback