| 6:51 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The "it's for the children" thing is always hard to counter.
| 7:17 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Asked about privacy concerns, DeGette said, "Someone who's raping a child has no right to privacy. And somebody who possesses materials that show that kind of crime also has no right to privacy." |
I tend to agree with her. Is anyone otherwise minded?
| 9:43 am on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The problem is that for every alleged child raper who has no right to privacy the right to privacy of several thousand innocents is going to hell in a handcart. But after all you don't have anything to hide if youre innocent haven't you?
As cruel as it might sound, live is dangerous and in the end always deadly. But that is no reason to give up fundamental rights, like the right to privacy.
| 1:47 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> I tend to agree with her. Is anyone otherwise minded?
I agree too, so let's have the SWAT team break down random doors just to make sure that no child is being molested. No...?
| 4:51 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|This week's congressional hearings have cast a spotlight on what's estimated to be a $20 billion per year industry, with an estimated 4.4 million illegal images floating around the Internet and in the possession of about 1.4 million people. |
This article adds to my belief that all of the stink about the keeping and surrendering of records really is about protecting children. If so, I support it.
It's just that I used to say I'm not afraid of slippery slopes. But these days, I am.
| 6:55 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It looks to me like Comcast was quite prepared to help out but the 'investigator' has been unable to tell them what date they need to be looking at.
That makes me wonder a bit. If it turns out no-one but this one fed saw the video, its most likely a complete setup. Diana DeGette, who seems to have a liberal voting record, might have a tiger by the tail.
Note for Americans. 'Liberal' is not a term of abuse where I live, but I do note the extreme right take great delight in getting centrists and leftists to carry out their agendas for them (they are referred to as 'useful idiots'). The entire security service seems to devote itself to this end.
On the face of it, this looks like a textbook FUD expedition.
| 9:47 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I agree too, so let's have the SWAT team break down random doors just to make sure that no child is being molested. No...? |
Are you serious? Unless I am totally misreading the situation there was nothing "random" about this.
Everytime something like this happens we get people screaming about civil liberties, freedom, privacy and all jazz. I am afraid that as a reasonable person I have no problems with the government (yours or mine), police or whoever being given access to this information. We are talking about the rape of a child after all.
| 10:21 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here's the problem. Information is power. People desire power. Power corrupts.
Just think of the awful things that people with too much power have done throughout history. Imagine if a hacker was to get ahold of peoples private records, imagine the blackmail damage they could do. Imagine if a political figure could gather information on his opponent. Law enforcement agencies, police chiefs, and judges would all have access to this information, all it takes is one corrupt one to use that information against somebody or to hold their elected position.
There is a reason tapping phones is supposed to be illegal.
The, "I have nothing to hide" jargon is just that, jargon. Everybody wants a personal life. If you truly had nothing to hide then I suggest you put up live webcams in your bathroom, living room and bedroom, because, if you truly had nothing to hide, then this wouldn't bother you.
| 3:17 am on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Are you serious? Unless I am totally misreading the situation there was nothing "random" about this.
random is still better, in terms of preserving liberty, than doing it to all. What's wrong, you're not going soft on child molesters, are you?
| 7:25 am on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|random is still better, in terms of preserving liberty, than doing it to all. |
They were looking for information about a specific case.
| 7:59 am on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|"A check of previous ICAC investigative efforts led law enforcement to a computer in Colorado where it had been made available for distribution in April 2005, several months prior to any other known location on the Internet," Waters said in his prepared remarks. |
Waters added, "I ask you to imagine the situation where a law enforcement officer can see the rape of a child taking place live on a Web camera and having an Internet service provider respond that they don't keep records to help us rescue that child."
Comcast said it couldn't comment on this instance because Waters' testimony didn't include information like a specific date that the company needs to track down what information request he was referring to.
Is there any web-site that does not retain access-logs for a month? And the rape is occurring live? And the authorities do nothing?
This smells bad. I suspect that the child rapists were also Communist terrorists. Something must be done about this.
| 9:34 am on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I remember a case in Austria with surveillance cameras. To prevent crime there were cameras in a city. But since it gets boring watching people down the road all day the guys behind the monitors started peeping in a womans bedroom.
And just recently some guys at a Berlin museum peeped into the window of the german chancellors private appartment with a surveillance camera installed on the roof.
And next week some bored tech guy will peep at the websites you have visited recently. Or the governement will make profiles of websites you have visited in case there is some suspicious pattern behind it linking you to crime or terrorism.
The problem with all this measurements is simply that they can be abused, will be abused and are already abused and endanger our liberties and our free societys.
| 1:39 pm on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There will always be someone prepared to commit a crime more horrible than you can imagine. Does this justify the state prying into your every waking move to see if you've done anything lately?
A crime free society can be had, its easy. You execute everyone with the potential for committing crimes, which is anyone over ten. Thats what it will take.
A slightly less drastic alternative if you don't mind a few crimes so long as they are only committed on other criminals, is to throw up a fence around your whole country and call it a jail.
This seems to be what we are heading towards. Laws are written faster than anyone can read, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. I think the idea is to gradually criminalize the entire civilian population except the super-rich, then use that as an excuse for total surveilliance.
| 4:14 pm on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
total surveilliance- This is a trend we are seeing in the UK.
And again its the must protect Children routine that comes into play here.
No one can really argue against that as has been said, however its a drip drip of civil liberties, when someone complains about yet another law they are held out to be a ist/ism of the month type person.
Having recently been on the receiving end of a corrupt coppers wrath(just to make up his monthly targets), I now say no to giving these morons on any more power.
We have enough laws to catch crooks, after all this rape crime as awful as it surely provided the poilice with enough evidence to get the guy?
| 4:33 pm on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Bent cops are a huge problem in the UK. I'm seriously thinking of making a site about it. One with names. I could fill up a dozen pages just with my own hair-raising stories.
I swear I've been pulled over so many times purely so a cop could chat me up. They protect their criminal mates and raid anyone who complains to the equally bent Charity Commission about their buddies.
I've seen policewomen lie in court and claim the defendants have convictions they don't have, and I've seen court transcripts that leave out the subsequent half hour telling off from the judge about it.
I've seen judges judging cases they have a direct financial interest in and I've seen the media say not a word about it all.
I think, seeing as we are being watched so closely, we ought to do a little more watching of our own.
| 5:20 pm on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Have anyone of you read the Committee on Energy and Commerce: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations minutes for April 6th, 2006?
| 9:08 pm on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
well, we need cameras to make sure people aren't call bad names too ;)
"But Mr Finestein said he thought the decision to prosecute the youngster was "crazy" and urged the Crown Prosecution Service to reconsider its decision.
"Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? I was repeatedly called fat at school. Does this amount to a criminal offence?"
what the hell is going on these days?
| 9:23 pm on Apr 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The problem with this sort of legislation is that people will assume that it will only be used for good and that governments never go bad.
"Nothing to hide" works fine now, but what happens when the government goes bad? When a government decides that an entire sub-set of people should be incarcerated, persecuted or exterminated, do you want to be part of what gave the government the power to do so?
Today, it's about stoping criminals but someday what is wrong might be made law and what is right makes you the criminal. In the words of Ben Franklin "He who sacrifices freedom for security is neither free nor secure"