Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Whitefoxsniper]

You mean that there is going to be someone, somewhere, who can blackmail me about the amount and type of porn I may or not be downloading?

They can already do that. Unless you use a VPN your ISP has all the logs of every website you visit and file you download. They can be released with a court order, a bribe, or a good hacker.

Ya but what's the likelyhood now that someone is actually monitoring that stuff outside of certain keywords. If there going to monitor it, it's more likely someone will look at it. Also now that I think about it, ISP's monitoring downloads of everybody they provide internet seems like a impossible job, sortof like someone saying they will record every conversation in a city to check for criminals.

[Aklyon]

It is an impossible job. But no one ever said people were smart in relation to checking for things that aren't obvious to define, certainly not people who have less technical knowledge than the people they want to do it.

[Scelly9]

You mean that there is going to be someone, somewhere, who can blackmail me about the amount and type of porn I may or not be downloading?

They can already do that. Unless you use a VPN your ISP has all the logs of every website you visit and file you download. They can be released with a court order, a bribe, or a good hacker.

Ya but what's the likelyhood now that someone is actually monitoring that stuff outside of certain keywords. If there going to monitor it, it's more likely someone will look at it. Also now that I think about it, ISP's monitoring downloads of everybody they provide internet seems like a impossible job, sortof like someone saying they will record every conversation in a city to check for criminals.

Have you seen the new list of monitored words? It encludes Keylogger, Virus, Pork, Swine, Pig, Hacking, Bird, Flu, Terrorist, Terrorism, Bomb, 9/11, and several hundred more. I doubt that they spend much time monitoring each thing, but its pretty likely that some of your messages get read.

[darkrider2]

The people who work at the FBI/CIA/whatever agency are people too. It's someones job somewhere to look over emails that look suspicious, and I bet he's not a complete jerkass, among anything, he probably understands we all have lives, cause he has one himself.

That being said. I'm not sure the pro-copywright agencies are filled with humans or not. It might be some profit maximizing robot-droids that became autonomous from the 90s. But that's just speculation.

[Loud Whispers]

The people who work at the FBI/CIA/whatever agency are people too. It's someones job somewhere to look over emails that look suspicious, and I bet he's not a complete jerkass, among anything, he probably understands we all have lives, cause he has one himself.

Someone who's paid to groom over thousands of private information from the internet, and you'd be saying anyone in that task force would have a life, or be able to empathize with faceless text?

[MaximumZero]

That person would have no life, and therefore be able to sympathize with the rest of us on the internet.

[SalmonGod]

The people who work at the FBI/CIA/whatever agency are people too. It's someones job somewhere to look over emails that look suspicious, and I bet he's not a complete jerkass, among anything, he probably understands we all have lives, cause he has one himself.

Yeah... I echo the sentiment of the above two... you obviously have not been paying attention to the way law enforcement actually behaves these days...

[Loud Whispers]

That person would have no life, and therefore be able to sympathize with the rest of us on the internet.

But they're reading captures of the internet. There's no connection.

It's reading print outs of the internet.

There's no life.

And no internet.

Truly the most abysmal of all life forms.

[Tabbyman]

I'm tempted to be the obnoxious Canadian in every thread relating to American issues, but wow. That's pretty bad.

I'm the other obnoxious Canadian who says our government has been trying to pass bills for a long time that do pretty much the same thing, mostly along the lines of giving police infinite spying powers without warrant or due process or anything of the sort. Lately lumped together with all sorts of such laws for everything from the internet to what natural health products we're allowed to consume to how harsh the drug laws are going to be.

We're dodging bullet after bullet. I just hope we can keep it up till something gives 'cause I'm not looking forward to the inevitable world where you've got cameras in your house to prevent crime.

[Seriyu]

I'd just like to say that saying that 100% of anything is bad, no matter how badly they seem to be acting, is bad practice in any situation. It isn't statistically sound, and it's blaming and possibly wearing down people that are trying to fix the problem from the inside. I've never had or heard of any police issues around here, I live in a small town, you hear about these things, even if not through the news.

I'm not saying police are some kind of perfect enforcer of justice, many of them have been doing terrible things and should be booted from the force immediately for doing such things. All I'm saying is that under any circumstances, it is impossible, or nearly so, to know if 100% of something is corrupt, or even the majority. So it's probably better to not condemn a sweeping category of people just because there are a handful of people doing horrible things. I'm definitely with darkrider2 on this.

[Tabbyman]

I'd just like to say that saying that 100% of anything is bad, no matter how badly they seem to be acting, is bad practice in any situation. It isn't statistically sound, and it's blaming and possibly wearing down people that are trying to fix the problem from the inside. I've never had or heard of any police issues around here, I live in a small town, you hear about these things, even if not through the news.

I'm not saying police are some kind of perfect enforcer of justice, many of them have been doing terrible things and should be booted from the force immediately for doing such things. All I'm saying is that under any circumstances, it is impossible, or nearly so, to know if 100% of something is corrupt, or even the majority. So it's probably better to not condemn a sweeping category of people just because there are a handful of people doing horrible things. I'm definitely with darkrider2 on this.

Oh for sure. What I'm saying is giving people more and more power allows those who would abuse it to do more damage. Not saying there's anything wrong with every single police officer or whatever, just that the potential for misuse of power goes up when laws are broadened. It's not the street cops you see working every day for our security that are doing harm so much as the decision makers who make unjust laws. The police are a tool of lawmakers, and as a tool it's only in isolated incidents where they're doing intentional injustice outside of enforcing the law.

I've long since dropped my old anarchist lenses and adopted a clearer view on humanity. There's something to be gained in there, but it isn't "DIE PIGS DIE!"

The law also pushes the commodity into the black market, creating immense capital for organized crime, leading to more gang violence. Certain people say this means the police need more power, despite the fact that more power seems to lead to more heavily armed criminals. Just striking down prohibition laws would undercut the vast majority of criminal profit sources, shrinking their influence a great deal and making the world a safer place.

Thus if the police didn't have the power invested in them to interfere with your personal use of a substance, YOU would be safer. Not because the police officer is a bad man (or woman) but because the job description is counter to the interests of society. Let him/her fulfill a more necessary function and by golly he/she will.

It's only the odd psychopathic police officer who's in it to hurt people. The stereotypical riot police, or the guys in Vancouver, BC who repeatedly tasered a Polish man in the airport until he died. They're acting outside of the system. (Not that they're getting charged, despite lying in court)

[Seriyu]

Oh yeah, I was just responding to a previous post, that in hindsight I should've quoted. And I think I even took it a bit too literally to boot. (It's like, 3 AM here, what can I say )

And for all I know I misunderstood the meaning, to boot. We're pretty much on the same page. I perhaps don't feel as strongly, but I'm definitely in the boat that it is "a bad thing".

[Sergius]

Not saying I've done it anytime recently, but if I had to download something everyother week or so to have the best version, while a legit buyer got it in an autoupdater or something for no effort, I'd certainly feel like I got the short end of the (constantly updating) stick.

Why would you need to constantly patch something? Unless the software is buggy as hell, I doubt pirates have any problem waiting a month between batch updates just to get the latest HorseArmor^TM.



EDIT: << removed scarcity rant >>

[johnPeteres]

I wonder how much would it cost just to track down those users who are downloading pirated softwares. I guess it wouldn't be feasible. Piracy can't be stopped because people are patronizing it. Why not sell the software for free? There would be no pirates around. Computer hackers/geniuses will always find a way to bypass measures aimed at tracking down illegally downloaded softwares.

[johnPeteres]

I wonder how much would it cost just to track down those users who are downloading pirated softwares. I guess it wouldn't be feasible. Piracy can't be stopped because people are patronizing it. Why not sell the software for free? There would be no pirates around. Computer hackers/geniuses will always find a way to bypass measures aimed at tracking down illegally downloaded softwares.