|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » The U.S. government hard at work protecting its citizens. |
| 1-5 of 5 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 08-02-11 12:53pm - 4891 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The U.S. government hard at work protecting its citizens. The U.S. government hard at work protecting its citizens by making ISPs retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and dynamic IP addresses. That information will be easily available to law enforcement, and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well. ....................... ....................... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/how...risk/590?tag=nl.e539 How The New ‘Protecting Children’ Bill Puts You At Risk By Violet Blue | August 1, 2011, 11:37pm PDT Last Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives’ judiciary committee passed a bill that makes the online activity of every American available to police and attorneys upon request under the guise of protecting children from pornography. The Republican-majority sponsored bill is called the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. It has nothing to do with pornography, and was opposed by over 30 civil liberties and consumer advocacy organizations, as well as one brave indie ISP that is urging its customers to do everything they can to protest the invasion of privacy. “Protecting Children” forces ISPs to retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and dynamic IP addresses. It’s like having your wallet plus the web sites you visit tracked and handed over on request. These logs are now going to be retained for the scope of one and a half years. (I have to wonder if ISPs can sell this data, too.) This has nothing to do with porn. In case you’re like the Reps that passed this nightmare and you’ve forgotten: pornography is legal in the United States. It is pedophilia that is illegal. But for the sake of harnessing hysteria to get a bill passed, clearly these particular Republicans find it convenient to conflate “pornographers” as pedophiles. Last time I checked in on the matter, pedophiles did not operate within the laws surrounding adult pornography. Personally, I’m insulted as a porn-loving American girl to be included by way of consumer participation in this disgusting and misleading characterization. And that my privacy has just been sold for something that doesn’t actually help the children. I don’t feel confident that treating us all like the criminals our system can’t catch is going to protect any children, especially when the people who passed the bill can’t - or won’t - distinguish the difference between legal adult pornography and pedophilia. CNET’s Declan McCullagh reminds us that “the mandatory logs would be accessible to police investigating any crime and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well.” CNET reported that mandatory data retention was being fast-tracked in January, 2011. The fact that civil litigants could subpoena your internet activity and the contents of your wallet has nothing to do with the labeled and stated purpose of this bill. “The bill is mislabeled,” said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.” Read also: House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill However, this bill has a provision stating that a court does not need to approve administrative subpoenas used by U.S. Marshals who might use it to ‘track down unregistered sex offenders.’ This received strong arguments against giving Marshals too much power. The Electronic Frontier Foundation spearheaded consumer and privacy groups’ opposition to the bill and hosted a one-click letter-writing campaign. This included the ACLU, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Patient Privacy Rights and many more. Because of the way the bill requires information to be collected and stored, the EFF called the bill “ripe for abuse by law enforcement officials” and said that because the laws designed to protect the private data of consumers from government access are insufficient and out-of-date, it creates “a perfect storm for government abuse.” Small ISPs Are Ringing The Alarm While consumer groups opposed it and tech news outlets I trust are spelling out concerns, it was when my own ISP made a blog post that it was clear that this bill isn’t just a problem for privacy proponents. Sonic.net’s CEO Dane Jasper personally posted Help us, protect your privacy online. Today we retain most IP allocation logs for just two weeks; we don’t need them beyond that period, so they are deleted. Storing logs longer presents an attractive nuisance, and would potentially make our customers the target of invasions of privacy. Any lawyer can simply file a Doe lawsuit, draft up a subpoena and request a customer’s identity. It’s far too easy. Do the wheels of justice – or investigation – move too slowly, and should data be retained for a long time to allow for legitimate investigation? No, there are already tools in place that law enforcement can easily use to ask ISPs to preserve log information of real online criminals. The 1996 Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act allows law enforcement to require an ISP to keep data for 90 days upon law enforcement request, giving time for a legitimate search warrant to be reviewed by a judge and issued. The CEO points out that because the bill applies to commercial providers, naturally it won’t catch people pursuing criminal activity, who can simply use public Wi-Fi. Or 4G wireless, such as through a cell carrier. Lifehacker points this out in What You Need to Know About the Internet Snooping Bill (and How You Can Protect Yourself): One nice feature of the PCFIPA of 2011 bill is that it doesn’t include cellular data, so if you’ve thought about switching to 4G wireless data at home you’ll soon have another reason. That’s right: wireless carriers are exempt from having to store all your data and provide it on notice. This is likely because unlike small ISPs such as Sonic, wireless carriers lobbied the bill authors to get out of it. The Department of Justice fought against the mobile exemption. Obviously if someone is going to distribute pedophilia they could do it over a 4G wireless card just as easily as their DSL account, so in a certain context, the wireless carriers have lobbied their way out of the cost burden. That also makes this bill anti-small business, because smaller ISPs like Sonic have to bear the costs, while Verizon and friends, don’t. I think that ultimately, the ones bearing the true costs will be us. And don’t give me that ‘if you’re not doing anything wrong you shouldn’t worry’ line. It’s as ripe as Congressman Weiner’s old line, ‘my account was hacked.’ | |
|
||
| 08-02-11 01:03pm - 4891 days | #2 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Big Brother is still around.  Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 08-02-11 01:19pm - 4891 days | #3 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
The U.S. government isn't the only one doing an outstanding job of protecting its citizens. Britain is also taking forceful action, sentencing the man who tried to throw a pie at Rupert Murdoch to six weeks in jail. Let's hear it for the anti-pie throwing law enforcerment. Hip, hip, horray! My only question is: why isn't Rupert Murdoch's wife in jail, because she not only hit the pie-man with his own pie, but she slapped him as well. The femdom brute in action, saving her husband from a pie-thrower's assault. ......... ......... Rupert Murdoch Pieman Gets Six Weeks Jail The Hollywood Reporter – 5 hours ago LONDON - Rupert Murdoch's pie-thrower was jailed for six weeks by the City of Westminster Magistrates Court, Tuesday, despite the fact that the News Corp CEO and Chairman had not wanted to press charges. Jonathan May-Bowles, the 26-year old "anarchic comedian" had received a slap and his own pie in his face courtesy of Wendi Deng Murdoch after he tried to pie the News Corp boss at the House of Commons on July 19. After pleading guilty to charges of assault last week, he was ordered to pay a fine and costs totalling $900 at the sentencing hearing. The case was brought by the Crime Prosecution Service, the British equivalent of the District Attorney's office. District Judge Daphne Wickhamtold May-Bowles that Rupert Murdoch's appearance before the committee had been "of huge importance to a number of people deeply affected by the conduct of employees at his organisation," and that his own intervention had contravened the "dignity and civilized approach" of the proceedings. "No-one save you could have known what that foam was. I have to take into account the fear that you caused in that room Lawyers for May-Bowles said the attack had been in the spirit of public protest and had not intended physical harm to the 80-year old News Corp boss. "Slapstick and throwing pies dates back to the 1900s as a recognized form of protest," said defence lawyer Tim Greaves. "He [May-Bowles] intended to express how he was feeling and how he believed the British public were feeling and he sought to do that in the least harmful way he could." Greaves also said that May-Bowles would appeal the prison sentence. Earlier, the court heard that May-Bowles had smuggled the foam pie into the House of Commons inside an old shirt, which he had later discarded. As the tense evidence session in which Rupert and James Murdoch answered questions on phone-hacking - in a hearing carried live by news networks around the world - May-Bowles stunned committee members, Murdoch's bodyguard and onlooking police men by getting alongside Rupert Murdoch and hitting him with the shaving foam pie. Wendi Deng Murdoch, seated behind her husband, saw the attack attempt unfold and launched herself across two people to slap May-Bowles on the head and then hit him with his own pie. | |
|
||
| 08-02-11 03:28pm - 4891 days | #4 | |
|
Xtiaan (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 4 Registered: Apr 29, '08 Location: USA |
Sad thing is that many people won't even know that this will pass. http://www.beautifulfeetonline.com http://www.pantyhosedfetish.com http://www.footpervert.com | |
|
||
| 08-02-11 08:10pm - 4891 days | #5 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Reminds me of the guy who threw his shoes at Bush back in 2008--and he got nine months without even hitting W!  I guess the fear is that if someone can sneak in a prop to use in a humiliating prank/"assault" on a VIP, can they also sneak in a real weapon? Considering the shoe thrower was a journalist and this was during a news conference, maybe Naked News could better handle these things in the future. And as for Murdoch, I bet his incident made rich old guys everywhere quite happy that their much younger, more vigilant partners could be more than just eye candy. Call me a wimp, but a woman who would be willing to go to bat, or at least to pie, for me is pretty sexy. I guess it's part of a survivalist instinct passed down through evolution. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Aug 02, 2011, 08:25pm | |
|
||
| 1-5 of 5 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
