User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:08:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Obviously you don't have children or you'd realize how ridiculous your statement is. Don't worry--you will still have access to your porn. Besides, that's a good thing--if you're wanking to porn you won't be producing spawn. Win-win. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:08:52 AM EDT
[#2]
If the PUBLIC computers allow kids to see porn, then let's sue the PUBLIC Libraries for the lack of responsibility. Oh wait, the government owns them and the government HAS no responsibility for its actions, i.e. Governmental Immunity... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:10:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Why not just tax porn out of sight?
Would anyone support that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:11:28 AM EDT
[#4]
but it has nothing to do with the subpoena, which is a fishing expedition. sheesh. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:11:38 AM EDT
[#5]
no, more taxes are the last thing America needs. besides what keeps people from hosting images offshore? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:11:51 AM EDT
[#6]
I saw that part. I disagree both with the law, and with the demand that Google turn over private data to further the governments research. My knee didn't jerk at all. I disagree with the law because as happy and rosey as it sounds on the surface, the details of requiring access codes, age verification, and lots of internet services beyond web browsing are far more burdensome than senators and mommies think. They want a turn key criminal solution, and to hell with it if it stiffles or kills some public forums. "These things are just way too complicated for me to understand, but I'll just toss little Johnny on it and assume daddy .gov will watch over him". That's what they want. I disagree with the request because as I see it they are taking the product and labor of a private company to provide research they find too burdensome to conduct on their own. Studies of what is searched most often is done all the time and it's no surprise to anyone that porn is at the top. Why does it also require the identity and/or origin IP of millions of users to make that point. Why can't they contract out for their own research and not simply demand the products, services, and labor that others have paid for by force? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:12:19 AM EDT
[#7]
LoL, so your saying...... It's Google's fault? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:12:34 AM EDT
[#8]
 I realize that you can't keep your mouth away from the nearest AIDS infected penis long enough to realize that since the gov't has finite resources maybe, just maybe, securing our borders agains illegal immigrants and foreign terrorists holds a higher priority than violating people's 4th Amendment rights. Oh, I forgot that since you haven't been through high school yet you haven't learned about the U.S. Constitution. That's if you even make it to high school. Most children who are the product of a 2 dollar whore and a used condom she found dumpster diving don't do so well. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:13:29 AM EDT
[#9]
some people just don't understand the internet. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:14:20 AM EDT
[#10]
So a subpoena is just a polite request for your records and time in producing them which you are free to accept or reject? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:19:47 AM EDT
[#11]
Good post--thanks. I certainly have NO understanding of such things, so I appreciate the insight. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:21:10 AM EDT
[#12]
For all the defenders of this:
Imagine there was a nationwide chain of gun stores that everyone used. Kinda like the google of guns. They sell everything - handguns, evil assault weapons - you name it. One day, the justice deparment wants to study the effects of the AWB sunset, to see if the availability of "assault weapons" have lead to an increase in certain types of crime. So they subpoena EVERY 4473 from the chain in order to conduct their statistical study. Doesn't matter if you broke any law. The federal government has access to your information - not because YOU committed a crime or they have probable cause - but merely because they WANT this information. Would you support the federal government then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:21:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Why can't the government just assign a different domain for pr0n, something like .adl, just like there are .edu and .gov? Don't we control the system that assigns these t hings? That way, you could have a real simple Net Nanny like program that didn't have to look for every permutation of the word "vagina" but just looked for .adl. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:21:23 AM EDT
[#14]
Why not take your happy horseshit elsewhere? You're quick to stand and yak about MG bans and nationwide CCW, but when it comes to people looking at and accessing what they want, you're going to lay down the law? What kind of bullshit is this? Here's a clue for you, from someone who's not wholly out of touch with the remembrance of his teen years: My parents could not 'control' me. That's not to say that I was running rampant. Rather, I was an autonomous human being, that spent much of my time outside the direct supervision of my parents. I respected their authority and their rules because I respected them. I took up a belief in their ideals and morals because they made sense, and I respected them. My parents took the time to be parents, and so these penny-ante concerns that you raise were nonexistant. Don't regulate the habits of myself and others based upon the failings of parents who won't raise their children properly. You can legislate all you want, you can preach all you want, you can restrict all you want; the children will still search for, find, and look at, whatever they want. The only thing that will stop that is a proper upbringing with proper and decent morals, and a respect for the parental figures. You don't make your children respect you by passing federal legislation. You don't make them behave in a moral fashion by passing legislation. You raise concerns about public libraries, yet one has to wonder what a child is doing in a library, on the internet, unsupervised? Is this the mark of a good parent? I think not. This country needs values and morals. Not codes and regulations. It needs parents that give a shit about raising their children properly, not sheltering them from the 'bad people' of the world. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:26:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Websites are one out of many ways to get porn. Probably the primary method. But there is nothing stoping private individuals from trading over private sites, ftp, email, irc, scp, p2p, and a myrid of other ways. You will never stop even a semi-determined person, no matter what age, from accessing porn or materials on the net.
-Foxxz |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:27:33 AM EDT
[#16]
I'm guessing the compliance would be about as good as telling the spammers to knock off that spam crap. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:28:36 AM EDT
[#17]
It's not as simple as that. The internet doesn't care what 'dot-whatever' is in your address, just the IP number that it is translated to behind it. You could setup a .adl domain, and make people selling porn setup shop there, but what you can't do is prevent "L33tH4ckz0r32@yahoo" from posting a copy of porn he bought there onto a public access usenet server in .net that you happen to run and thereby end up making porn availible to a minor. The only recourse is to hire staff to monitor the content, spend money on third party apps to do the same, make it a closed system as well, or shut it down to avoid the liability. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:09:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Define "porn" so that everyone can tell the difference clearly between Hustler, a gynecological text, and everything else that may mention something to do with sex. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:10:14 PM EDT
[#19]
Bump for P1 update
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:25:02 PM EDT
[#20]
Some parents also don't care to instruct their children in proper firearm safety, so the government should restrict firearms. Right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:28:39 PM EDT
[#21]
Lets get this straight.. .gov says we need you to hand over a boat load of random info because we are looking for child porn peddlers... Why dont the just ask for the child porn stuff?
sounds like a fishing trip to me! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:45:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Well....interstate commerce of porn is still illegal, just as it's still technically illegal for non-US citizens to enter this country without a visa.
But those addicted to porn demand we secure the border so as to obey the law....but turn a blind eye to other law breakers whose "services" are not only addictive, but harmful to those (mostly boys) who are not mature enough to control their sexual appetites. Blaming the parents for not policing their kids only has some merits. You might as well say that we ought to not fight illegal drug pushers at all, just "control the kids". Yeah, like THAT would work! Parents know that unless children have fairly limited choices - limited by safety concerns - they WILL get into trouble. Curiousity is real and porn images are never forgotten, and the effect of porn addiction, masturbatory addictions, and overwrought sex fantasy are every more catalogued: rape, STDs, pre-marital sex, 50% divorce rates, child-abuse. Where does a parent go for relief from noxious substances that can harm their child? It's easier to police the ORIGIN of some noxious thing than play defense 24/7. Of course if your world view is that sex is totally innocent, has ZERO consequences, morally, physically, psychologically...and that ANY experimentation is harmless.... then all this is Puritanical nonsense. Since YOU looked or look at porn and you're not an axe-murderer or rapist....doesn't mean, given the bell curve that alot more guys became rapists since porn was mainstreamed than otherwise would have been. Garbage in...garbage out. Think you can quit at any time and therefore it's not addictive and not harmful? Try going cold turkey for 30 days. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 1:46:57 PM EDT
[#23]
This goes out to the Bush administration who no doubt has someone monitoring this post.
Come on George. The government gets 40% of my pay. Social security will bankrupt before I'm old enough to get any money even though I've been paying into it since I'm 16. My county is being invaded by illegal immigrants at such a rate that I have to learn spanish to order a cheeseberger. I can't have sex without fear of gettig a fricking disease. The cost of medication has increased so much in the last 5 to 10 years that I can barely afford to buy them when I get sick. Everyday I live with the risk of getting blown to hell by a terrorist. I'll probably get drafted when we invade Iran. CAN'T I AT LEAST SPANK OFF EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE? JEEZ. -Jason |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:51:28 PM EDT
[#24]
Ummm, OK. Saying it's ok to sensor what I want b/c my child might see it is like banning guns b/c my child might use it. Come on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 2:54:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Maybe, but I can't imagine that compliance would be any better in requiring pr0n sites to have age verifications like the gov wants.
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:02:17 PM EDT
[#26]
ok, who's worried they'll be caught?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:06:22 PM EDT
[#27]
 Didn't think about that. Maybe I'll try it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:08:26 PM EDT
[#28]
I'm oh so glad we've got our priorities straight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:35:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Sorry, you have your facts wrong. Google is actually a canadian company. All traffic is routed through MAE-EAST and MAE-WEST to BBN Canada where it's sent through a collection switch controlled by Harper, Inc (a holding company setup by a third party trust in Grand Cayman). Information is fed from there to 1984.ohshit.co.int for processing by a bank of Cray supercomputers leased by Mossad. Completely legal. It's not on U.S. soil and there's a FISA monitor court that controls the network and operation from www.fas.org which is located on a military installation at Guantanamo Base where there's no legal jurisdiction over the whole operation, because the requests come from an offshore rig in international waters run by New Zealanders and jointly owned by the swiss, the Hague, the U.N. and the International Bank of Settlements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:15:29 PM EDT
[#30]
me too |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:36:20 PM EDT
[#31]
I have probably seen my share of porn, but I never saw any with a cold turkey in it. What kind of stuff are you into, anyway? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:38:40 PM EDT
[#32]
I thought cold turkey was a type of booze, not pron. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:38:49 PM EDT
[#33]
That's YOUR job, NOT the .gov! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:43:39 PM EDT
[#34]
Since nobody seems to have noticed the P1 update, I just wanted to throw it in that AOL, Yahoo, and MSN actually DID roll over and give the government your search information. Yahoo appears to have aggregated it, and the gov specifically said that no, they want IP's and weeks to months' worth of searches on individuals.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled windmill-tilting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:44:17 PM EDT
[#35]
How old were you when you saw your first dirty picture? Do you think you were irreparably damaged because you saw a picture of some guy putting his ..... in some girl's ..... ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:48:13 PM EDT
[#36]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:50:49 PM EDT
[#37]
Where's that "O RLY" owl picture |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:10:44 PM EDT
[#38]
RIIIIIIGGHHTTTT, how are 11-18 yr. olds goona get porn then?!.....go back to stealing 'em from the convenienc estorte like I did..... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:13:49 PM EDT
[#39]
You disgust me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:09:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Welcome to my world!
The Government in Britain started doing this two years ago and you all said it could never happen in the US..... ANdy |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 11:22:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Doesn’t it bother you guys that companies like Google and Yahoo store your IP address and search parameters forever? Do you have any control over what happens to that data? If Google wasn’t data mining that data for profit, they could not offer it up to the Feds, could they?
Also, note that both Yahoo and Google censor search results for the benefit of the Chinese government. And Yahoo offered up the IP address of a Chinese dissident and he ended up getting 10 years in a Chinese prison. He’ll probably die there. Do you think these companies give a shit about your privacy? I don’t think so. The wording in that article is unclear. It doesn’t appear to me that the Feds are asking for IP addresses. They are asking for the search query strings and matching result set. They could do that manually if they wanted to, but it would take forever. Do you think perhaps that the search engines are injecting porn links into your search results for profit? Perhaps this is the “trade secret” they don’t want to divulge? Don’t jump to conclusions. Perhaps the Feds already know that the search engines are spiking your search results with porn links and are putting them on notice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:10:39 AM EDT
[#42]
How about we start an ARFcom-Wide program to get most members to google-search something like "Fuck You Government Goons"?
I mean it's not like they aren't watching all of us already, what's one more visit from your friendly neighborhood jackboot? Remember, it's for the chiiiiiiiiildren! Hell, not like I mind trying to stop kiddies from surfing porn... But get real people, this is going to give the .gov EVERY FRICKIN SEARCH RECORD google/yahoo/et al has. Why not just have them implant microphones up our asses, so much more cost effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 4:40:50 AM EDT
[#43]
Hmm.
If you don't look at Kiddie Porn/Lolita, you have nothing to be upset about. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 4:47:44 AM EDT
[#44]
Actually dude you ain't so far from the truth! The NSA has it's biggest facility outside the USA in Britain with full access to the entire coms network..... Look up RAF Menwith Hill. As RAF Menwith Hill is UK Territory, the NSA is operating outside the CONUS.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 5:15:07 AM EDT
[#45]
so was that sarcasm? This has nothing to do with kiddie porn. They're trying to see if they can determine the effectiveness of COPA, which was meanto to prevent kids from LOOKING at porn. Something they can't possibly tell from thsi fishing expedition. How in the hell are they going to tell that a kid was at the computer instead of an adult? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 5:36:54 AM EDT
[#46]
Yes, it was sarcasm..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 5:56:26 AM EDT
[#47]
Real simple. People who choose to give their kids access to the internet either need to monitor the child while on the net, or purchase, with their own god damned money, software like net nanny to filter bad material. There is a hell of a lot more than porn on the net that you don't want kids seeing.
Now, if a porn site or hate site or sight with otherwise objectionable content puts a child safe type header on their page, go after them criminally. Because at that point it is obvious that the site is specifically targeting minors. And 99% of the porn sites out there have the little logo at the bottom of the page stating that they participate in the those programs to keep kids off of their site, which means they have a hidden header on their page letting the various child protection software packages know the site is NOT safe for children. Really, it's like the V-Chip, if you decide to give your child unsupervised access to something that may have content you don't want the child to see, you should be responsible for stopping your children from accessing it. And here was a device that could be purchased to prevent access when a parent wasn't watching. But, of course the V-Chip failed because half of the parents really don't care what their kids watch, and the other half already restricted their kids from viewing such programs. But, the government in its infinite wisdom decided that the V-Chip wasn't selling because of the expense(yeah, they can afford a $2500 big screen, but $75 for something to protect their kids just was beyond their budget  ) so now we all pay to have a V-Chip in every television even though no one uses them. A great thing if you are a company making V-Chips, for everyone else, it sucks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 6:00:06 AM EDT
[#48]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 6:05:04 AM EDT
[#49]
I expect to see many of you here who are against this to go out in public and support any peddlers or makers of child porn if they are ever busted.
Let us know how it goes. It's nice to see the Black Helicopter Syndrome is selective in it's use 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 6:06:08 AM EDT
[#50]
I think that won't be happening anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
