Results 1 to 10 of 11
Hybrid View
-
02-20-2009, 02:37 PM #1
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- CT
- Posts
- 68
Thanked: 2I love America - land of the free and ...
monitored.
The scariest book I ever read was Orwell's 1984.
Why does this proposed legislation scare me so much?
Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police | Politics and Law - CNET News
-
02-20-2009, 04:09 PM #2
I don't know. Is it because you are a bad man?
The whole big brother thing has it's pro's & con's. I am not comfortable with being watched too closely, but it helps catch criminals.
-
02-20-2009, 04:33 PM #3
I'm also not bothered by this. Instead, I highly recommend getting ahead of the game and practice perfecting your Doublethink now rather than later.
If the government is going to get it's jollies out of watching me read books, chat on SRP, hone, shave and work with razors, watch me work, go to church, etc than I'll show em a real darn tootin good time.
Chris L"Blues fallin' down like hail." Robert Johnson
"Aw, Pretty Boy, can't you show me nuthin but surrender?" Patti Smith
-
02-20-2009, 07:50 PM #4
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Braintree Ma. U.S.A.
- Posts
- 112
Thanked: 17Come to Massachusetts.
There is serious talk of putting GPS chips in car inspection stickers. "They" only want to know how many miles you drive and bill you accordingly. And lets not talk about when the system is hacked and anyone can see your location.
-
02-20-2009, 08:01 PM #5
y'all are missing the bad part. INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE AT HOME with wireless routers will be held criminally accountable if they get wardriven. This is a huge deal. A BAD deal.
Do you really want to have to keep logs of all that information, make regular backups, and purchase offsite storage in order to comply with the law? Dunno 'bout y'all, but I could do without the hassle.
Also, this in no way helps solve any kind of crime. It's silly and it's technologically infeasible to assume everyone will bother to do this. I don't care if some ancient senator who doesn't know anything about the "intarweb" thinks this will solve crimes. It won't solve squat, it's a tremendous waste of taxpayer money, and it needlessly violates the privacy of citizens as a guard against crimes they MIGHT commit someday.
If you're one of the ones who says, "a good person has nothing to hide" then I'd like to recommend that you report to the nearest jail and volunteer to be incarcerated... you know, just in case you were going to commit a crime some day.Last edited by jockeys; 02-20-2009 at 08:05 PM.
-
02-20-2009, 08:19 PM #6
I must say this is a good way to get rid of the socialist practice of everybody paying for the roads either equally, or based on what they earn, not how much they use.
Well if crimes can be committed over the internet, I guess it makes sense that some responsibility would be with those who provide the tools for these crimes.
I would think I would be held responsible if I leave my gun widely accessible and somebody takes it and goes on a killing rampage. Or may be I wouldn't - I'm not quite sure really.
It seems to me that as often the case is, the people with the money buy the laws they like. The only way for the people without the money to get their say is to get in sufficiently large numbers so that the lawmakers would have a slightly different cost/benefit problem to deal with (i.e. lose the money or lose the job). Of course there are lawmakers that make laws based on convictions, not on cost/benefit analysis, but I think they're a minority.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to gugi For This Useful Post:
denmason (02-25-2009)