Holy SHIT! House Passes New Internet Law Without Any Review!

And before that in the WWII internment camps...

And before that during slavery...

And before that during the Mexican American War...

and before that during the trail of tears...

and before that during the Salem witch trials...

 

Yeah! Government always seeks to control the populace. The purveyors of kiddie porn and those that view it should be shut down. They deserve anything they get. But there are laws on the books to deal with that already. I totally agree that this is not about porn. It is a law designed to be changed to target whomever they (the powers that be in DC) wish to go after. Same with all the other laws that have been enacted recently without the normal process in congress. Our rights are being whittled away bit by bit until the country becomes a democracy in name only.

They keep trying to control the internet and the people who use it. Ever since the first computer linked up with another one via a phone line. The folks who invented the internet opened pandora's box and now the governments of the world are trying to close it up and control the phenomena. They might be able to shut down one server or service but they won't shut down ALL of them and the folks who Really want to communicate will just switch and reset up all over again under another name with another web address and through another country if need be. As I see it the law has serious enforcibility flaws. And it will only force the pornographers to move their sites to offshore hosting services and be less vulnerable to the laws of our country.

Maybe the law was sponsored by the offshore hosting companies as a way to drum up business?

Anyways, I totally agree with all the above posts and I will get off my soapbox now.

Peace, Cricketlind

 

Yes. But the fact is that there is no privacy on the Internet. Any ISP will turn
its logs and your personal data over to any corporation or government agency
that asks.

Employees can be bribed without any trouble.

All sorts of corporate executives can demand access to any information
on any of their corporation's computers.

The gateways, the massive routers that funnel all Internet traffic certainly
have supercomputers monitoring that traffic, and the IP protocol makes
it very simple to trace the origins of packets.

Free-lance hackers can break into almost any computer without leaving
a trace. They've even managed to access Pentagon computers.
Those in the employ of the military and spy agencies are just as good.
Or better.

As for encrypted communications being secure? PGP/SSL/HTTPS/SSH and
so forth? Sorry, I don't buy it. The government didn't put up but a token
objection to them. They can crack them. If they couldn't they would have
banned them, and that ban would be easy to enforce because their use
would be easy to spot.

A wise person assumes that everything they send out or receive on the
Internet is public, not private. And that they can be tracked down if
powerful entities, private or governmental really wants to find them.
These entities are not limited to cyberspace when it comes to tracking
people.

Anyone with a few thousand dollars to spare can hire a large personal
investigations firm that can find anyone.

If you want privacy, send a letter via the post office or in a UPS package.
Or better yet, deliver it yourself or send it with a trusted friend.
And if you are using the mails or package services, don't write it in
in clear or encrypt it. They have scanners that can search for key
words and spot encrypted messages.

Littlefoot

 

I think correct on both accounts. I took a class on computers in society and this is one of the things most Americans in a 2005 poll thought should be more regulated by the government. Also the Supreme Court really doesn't like laws restricting privacy because they creep dangerously close to the first amendment which guarantees free expression: right to free speech, freedom of the press; and religious freedom: establishment clause, free exercise clause. That means that people can take pictures of whatever they want. More importantly the fourth amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional, and in order to perform a search police must have a search warrant which requires probable cause. The courts might say that this law would limit freedoms in a way that is unconstitutional. They could also say that the current laws are too lenient and in the interest of order better laws should be enacted.

 

Kudos to Ron Paul!

But, he still won't get my vote.

This "law" is Bushit and the Democrats who voted for it are slime.

 

What you say Skip is so true it makes me want to puke.

 

Agreed. Quote from www.scienceblog.com

and

If that's true the law will probably stick.

 

Skip you made a really good point out loud that has a deeper meaning than what is noticeable from the surface. (Actually you made a lot of excellent points.)

If the gov't requests info from HipForums, you do not have to give it to them. If the gov't forced you to do this, it would be in violation of the Bill of Rights. It is like the US gov't wants to blackmail citizens to give up their rights. 'Give them what they want or they will fine you $100,000 without any lawful consideration.' It is like the US gov't (or certain parties within) want to label everyone they don't like as a criminal.
Amendment 5 states that "No loss of life, liberty or property without due process." I consider any fine a loss.
Amendment 6 states "Right to speedy, public, impartial trial with defense counsel, and right to cross-examine witnesses." This means if the gov't wants to fine you they need to give you the option to take matters to court.
Amendment 8 states "No excessive bail or fines, no cruel and unusual punishments." This is deffinetly violated. Hundreds of thousands of dollars is deffinetly an excessive fine for simply refusing to release private information about someone that hasn't broken the rules.

I could go on about this stuff but I really need to go.

 

I second that.

 

I do now, Skip. It is truly appalling. But not surprising. The New World Order
is a third world country. Like cosmicdust says, it's neo-feudalism.

Which it always was. It's just that now it's coming HERE.

The chickens are coming home to roost. We won't any longer be able
to keep the de facto slaves that make this system work out of sight
in foreign countries.

And we won't be able to trash their environment instead of ours, to make
the stuff we consume.

There's nothing new, essentially, about this sort of invasion/loss of privacy.
It's just happenning in a medium that hasn't existed before, the Internet.

Littlefoot