mlhm5 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Wait, I thought the Republicans said it was the Democrats who were trampling on personal privacy, no? "Don't tread on me" ring a bell? Now that the election is over, it's back to the same old, same old GOP. Funny how these self-proclaimed liberty-lovers of the right see a creeping police state in everything government does, except when government actually behaves like a police state. "A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users' activities for later review by police." - Link The GOP does not want internet privacy for consumers. Shorter. What they really mean is "We want at least half the bandwidth you pay for to be dedicated to downloading ads for our chosen corporate masters, whether you like it or not." "Republicans, who will control the House of Representatives in January, greeted the idea of Internet "do not track" legislation coolly on Thursday, expressing concern that hindering advertiser access to consumers web browsing habits would slow innovation. - Link The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gseries69 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 I read the article. Seems what they are trying to do is collect information to go after folks involved with child pornography. I'm not sure that qualifies as republicans being "The Nanny Party", unless of course you have a penchant for that type of web content. I think it's fair to debate the privacy issue, but to portray the republicans as offering up a bill so that they can be the nanny party while the article talks about law enforcement of child pornography is disengenuos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Williams Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 "A House panel chaired by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users' activities for later review by police." - Link The GOP does not want internet privacy for consumers. Why are they going to waste their time holding a hearing to discuss this when they could just ask you what they want to do and save themselves all that time and hassle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimP Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 My God man... just what the heck are you raving about...??? Put aside your hatred for everything not moonbat and come down to earth for a rationale discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustyjigz Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 This not change I am looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustyjigz Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 George Bush and his effing patriot act, Now This tool bag with this- Police and prosecutors are the biggest backers of data retention. FBI director Robert Mueller has said that forcing companies to store those records about users would be "tremendously helpful in giving us a historic basis to make a case" in investigations, especially child porn cases. An FBI attorney said last year that Mueller supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," meaning logs of which Web sites are visited. Also they want to start a national DNA data base to. I don't even recognize my country anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 I read the article. Seems what they are trying to do is collect information to go after folks involved with child pornography. I'm not sure that qualifies as republicans being "The Nanny Party", unless of course you have a penchant for that type of web content. I think it's fair to debate the privacy issue, but to portray the republicans as offering up a bill so that they can be the nanny party while the article talks about law enforcement of child pornography is disengenuos. I did not read that they were going to collect information on just "people involved with child porn". I read it as the Republicans wanted to collect information on everyone and then decide what to do with that information. The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gseries69 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 I did not read that they were going to collect information on just "people involved with child porn". I read it as the Republicans wanted to collect information on everyone and then decide what to do with that information. This comes directly from the article you posted. A Judiciary committee aide provided a statement this afternoon saying "the purpose of this hearing is to examine the need for retention of certain data by Internet service providers to facilitate law enforcement investigations of Internet child pornography and other Internet crimes," but declined to elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustyjigz Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 This comes directly from the article you posted. A Judiciary committee aide provided a statement this afternoon saying "the purpose of this hearing is to examine the need for retention of certain data by Internet service providers to facilitate law enforcement investigations of Internet child pornography and other Internet crimes," but declined to elaborate. They will gather every ones info. Don't think for one second they won't. Thanks W! Dick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlhm5 Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 This comes directly from the article you posted. A Judiciary committee aide provided a statement this afternoon saying "the purpose of this hearing is to examine the need for retention of certain data by Internet service providers to facilitate law enforcement investigations of Internet child pornography and other Internet crimes," but declined to elaborate. As I read that, it includes everyone. The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard, and the shallow end is much too large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NS Mike D Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 as I read it, and I didn't see a formal proposal, I did not see where they just turn over the records, but rather they cannot detroy them right away, as turning them over would have to be by court order. Did I get that wrong? "... let it go - lets move forward." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dena Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Wanna bet that someone instrumental in crafting this legislation will end up snared in the web they helped create. I can't wait. Material abundance without character is the path of destruction. -Thomas JeffersonThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. -Soren Kierkegaard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianBM Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 The point to this - child pornography marketing aside - is to make Internet history available to police agencies. You'd be kidding yourself to think it'll be limited to porn cases or porn investigations; this is another expansion of the surveillance state that exploded under President Bush, and Obama, damn him, has been content to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnieB Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 They will gather every ones info. Don't think for one second they won't. Thanks W! Dick! Pssst.....Bush hasn't been President for two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustyjigz Posted January 26, 2011 Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Pssst.....Bush hasn't been President for two years. He set the stoopid in motion with his patriot act... Just like i blame Bush Sr and Clinton for playing nice with china. I don't play favorites I will put the feet of whoever is to blame to the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.bb0afd128791a8e562a0aef19c7489b1.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to register here in order to participate.
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now