Sankaku Complex Forums » General

1. 

   jamesownsall
   

   Because I imagine it would irk some people in here if I create a new threat everytime someone tries to censor the Internet. Since SOPA is lying indefinitely dormant and legislators are finding new and creative excuses to do what they intend to do with SOPA, I thought I'd just lump it all here for people interested in it.

   The newest one would be of California's Prop 35. Basic premise is simple: "WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?" There are actually a lot of things on it that would make things easier for law enforcement agencies to do their job, but one little detail almost didn't register on most people who only look at it by first glance.

   If the proposition passes, sex offenders would be required to notify local law enforcement agencies every time they signed up for a new Internet Service Provider or acquired a new "Internet identifier." That is defined as "an electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier used for the purpose of Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussions, instant messaging, social networking, or similar Internet communication."

   "This is for pedos. What's it got to do with me?"

   The provision has raised the ire of civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "EFF opposes this proposition because it would create new restrictions on online speech and increased government surveillance of the online accounts for a class of individuals, creating a dangerous legislative model for policing unpopular groups in the future," wrote staffer Rainey Reitman in a Sunday blog post.

   Since the funny thing in law is that they tend to snowball, and justification for one case often gets used for another, soon they'll say it's OK to tie your neck up to the government because you're anti-(insert any president here), you're against a decision made by government and campaigning for it(for instance, going to war with another country as 'pre empetive' measure), or hell, being a supporter of gun-owning rights. Possibilities are endless, but ultimately it just results in loss of freedom.

   The previous song was all about piracy, but this time, by putting children on the line, they're attempting to turn this debate from commercial to sexual morality.

   "Y'ALL ARE CHILDFUCKING PSYCHOS IF YOU'RE AGAINST THIS LAW!" etcetc...

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
2. 

   Twintail Tsundere
   

   All little insight from a Cali native. On TV and radio I've heard ads for and against most of the ballot props but not this one. There is mindset for most voters to vote no on any prop they don't know about and given this years awareness about wasteful spending, most would vote no on it, given that it adds more bureaucracy. Even Prop 30, which Brown has held schools hostage for and bombarded media with ads in support of, has much disapproval.

   Second, how would they go about enforcing this? One unsecured wifi spot spoils everything. And what about cell phones?

   Just another way for LEO to get more budget for electronic surveillance. Soon every PD will have their own UAV with electronic warfare suite, all at taxpayers expense.

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
3. 

   McSquid
   

   Anyone who is smart will stay one step ahead of the cops. If that wasn't the case throughout history, there'd be no crime.

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
4. 

   jamesownsall
   

   palmtop-tiger said:

   Just another way for LEO to get more budget for electronic surveillance. Soon every PD will have their own UAV with electronic warfare suite, all at taxpayers expense.

   Know what? With the scope in which unmanned drones are being used in current military, and the progress they're making on the tech(smaller, less easy to detect, carry weapons, etc), I foresee a very real future where you can't tell between a bird and a drone with a naked eye at more than 50 feet, at least in 30 years time. lol

   kanika said:
   Anyone who is smart will stay one step ahead of the cops. If that wasn't the case throughout history, there'd be no crime.

   If anyone is smart at all, there won't be cops in this world to begin with.

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
5. 

   McSquid
   

   jamesownsall said:

   If anyone is smart at all, there won't be cops in this world to begin with.

   What you said doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The whole reason we have cops is that some people are smart and others aren't. That has ramifications on every aspect of human society.

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
6. 

   jamesownsall
   

   kanika said:

   What you said doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The whole reason we have cops is that some people are smart and others aren't. That has ramifications on every aspect of human society.

   Sorry, I was going to say "everyone". Clearly though you didn't refer to that.

   But hey, most humans are idiots. Does that mean that we should just lay back and watch politicians wash their brains or let them get exploited by a law that damages them? Sure you're probably going to find a way around it, but you are not most people. We've seen a single mom being accused for pirating a song because she left her WiFi open. Is it OK to you that this happened to them because you're smart and they're not?

   I do however think that ISPs have the responsibility to teach their ignorant users more on security, and make it so that the default settings are the most secure. Don't know about you, but ALL ISPs I have around here basically leave homes with the kind of settings akin to a robbery invitation. lol

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
7. 

   Dark Mage
   

   kanika said:

   What you said doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The whole reason we have cops is that some people are smart and others aren't. That has ramifications on every aspect of human society.

   About a third of the cops in the US and the politicians who keep granting them more power need this treatment.
   

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
8. 

   Pyrolight
   

   The reason I don't see an issue is that they are starting from a very specific legal standpoint.

   Someone who was convicted of a specific crime that already requires you to register as a sex offender and all that entails, now taken online.

   The whole slippery slope argument really doesn't work here.

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
9. 

   Dark Mage
   

   Pyrolight said:
   The reason I don't see an issue is that they are starting from a very specific legal standpoint.

   Someone who was convicted of a specific crime that already requires you to register as a sex offender and all that entails, now taken online.

   The whole slippery slope argument really doesn't work here.

   Actually it does apply because increased police powers is always risky proposition since power esp without oversight corrupts.
   We already have so much abuse of power by the police in the US to the extent you could say the US is starting to resemble the Soviet Union.
   If you could make bearings and cylinder liners from something as slippery as that slope oilless engines that run at 20k rpm and last a million miles would be possible.

   This is why if I became president I'd reduce police powers back to 1960s levels.

   Posted 3 years ago # Quote
10. 

    Saber
    

    1.Fuck other peoples kids.

    I hate holy crusades. Sure something children should not see. I will be that first to admit that. That isn't my problem though. Until I get to a place where taking care of other people is my job i.e teaching. Then I don't care. I should not be punished for the failures of others.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
11. 

    Dark Mage
    

    donyea said:
    1.Fuck other peoples kids.

    I hate holy crusades. Sure something children should not see. I will be that first to admit that. That isn't my problem though. Until I get to a place where taking care of other people is my job i.e teaching. Then I don't care. I should not be punished for the failures of others.

    A crusade and a jihad are the same thing by different names.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
12. 

    Neat Hedgehog (2009/11/8 - 2014/03/06)
    

    jamesownsall said:
    "WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"

    Sounds good to me.

    

    Attachments

    1. ThinkOfTheChildren.jpg 3 years old

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
13. 

    Pyrolight
    

    Char said:

    Actually it does apply because increased police powers is always risky proposition since power esp without over sight corrupts.
    If you could make bearings and cylinder liners from something as slippery as that slope oilless engines that run at 20k rpm and last a million miles would be possible.

    I would call that a tire argument but it really isn't one.

    These are not some generic laws that could easily be interpreted to include anyone they wanted. It is focused at a specific group and the fear mongers address that then tack on the usual "but they could abuse the law and totally re-write it to suit their purposes".

    1. The courts would have to allow that to happen.

    2. It's a hilariously far stretch from "convicted child molesters" to "undesirables".

    3. If the police wanted to spy on you they could without this law (which again is an online version of the existing law), this actually does not make it any easier.

    4. The law has to be written in a vague manner for any real abuse of the intent to happen. A specific set of rules for a specific group is not something that can be easily abused the way the fear mongers are trying to portray it.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
14. 

    Neat Hedgehog (2009/11/8 - 2014/03/06)
    

    Pyrolight said:

    It is focused at a specific group

    As much as I hate to make a serious reply here, I will say that, atm, the term "sex offender" is pretty loose, in itself. I'm pretty sure the naked guy who was seen through his curtains at 6am is a "sex offender" now.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
15. 

    Dark Mage
    

    Neat Hedgehog said:

    As much as I hate to make a serious reply here, I will say that, atm, the term "sex offender" is pretty loose, in itself. I'm pretty sure the naked guy who was seen through his curtains at 6am is a "sex offender" now.

    I've heard of people getting labeled a sex offender just for pissing at the side of the road.
    If that is not overly vague and vastly over reaching then what is?

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
16. 

    Pyrolight
    

    Neat Hedgehog said:

    As much as I hate to make a serious reply here, I will say that, atm, the term "sex offender" is pretty loose, in itself. I'm pretty sure the naked guy who was seen through his curtains at 6am is a "sex offender" now.

    It is not really vague at all. You have to be convicted of specific crimes to be classified as one.

    If they said pervert then there could be issues.

    Char said:

    I've heard of people getting labeled a sex offender just for pissing at the side of the road.
    If that is not overly vague and vastly over reaching then what is?

    You have seen someone legally convicted as a sex offender in a court of law for pissing on the side of the road? I somehow really doubt that.

    Again regardless of what they group within "sex offender" you still have to be convicted and you are already tracked and tagged as one.

    The new law itself in no more or less of a slippery slope then the existing one.

    Which again is the question. How does this proposed law go from sex offenders to anything unrelated?

    Unless this law is capable of redefining what a sex offender is there is no issue.

    As it stands this proposed law is basically an extension of an existing law with its current definition of what a sex offender is.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
17. 

    Uncommon0taku
    

    yeah,... wut'ever palmtop was rantink aboot... &

    meiyaoe!

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
18. 

    คภєк๏
    

    Pyrolight said:
    You have seen someone legally convicted as a sex offender in a court of law for pissing on the side of the road? I somehow really doubt that.

    Indecent exposure, I would think.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
19. 

    Twintail Tsundere
    

    Looks like I overestimated voters' awareness, prop 35 is overwhelmingly approved. On a related note, LA county passed a requirement for condoms in adult films. They just love pushing out business.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote
20. 

    giascle
    

    palmtop-tiger said:
    LA county passed a requirement for condoms in adult films.

    This is going to hurt the economy more than any other issue people have been discussing.

    Posted 3 years ago # Quote

Reply »

You must log in to post.