This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
TA wrote on 2011-08-02 04:05
-
BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2011-08-02 11:18
they shouldnt do this at all
doesnt help much for their "intentions"
-
Shirayuki wrote on 2011-08-02 11:26
A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.
I'm confused by this bit @.@
Did they reject the super snooping bill, or reject the simple snooping bill?
Either way I feel like all Republicans do is watch child porn, and be against it for the public's eyes.
-
whocares8128 wrote on 2011-08-02 18:12
@Shirayuki There was a proposal to reduce the scope of what would be logged. That was rejected. So it sounds like the super snooping bill will go into effect.
This seems a lot like wiretapping everyone "in case police want to review them in the future." How can this be constitutional?
So first ISPs, next proxy servers? Why not require us all to wear a name badge with our address and SSN on it 24/7? That way, in case we commit a crime, we'll be easier to track down.
-
Tarvos wrote on 2011-08-02 20:03
"Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"
No wonder it got approved with a name like that.
-
Ark wrote on 2011-08-03 01:27
Reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons. Where they stuck on an extra part, to a more popular bill to get airplanes from flying so low on their house.
-
Sumpfkraut wrote on 2011-08-03 01:45
Kill, maim, burn! There will be much glorious bloodshed!
[Image: http://whfb.lexicanum.de/mediawiki/images/5/5c/Chaoschampion_Art.jpg]
[video=youtube;qbireii6Y3Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbireii6Y3Y[/video]
No but seriously, some car burning and stone throwing is in order.
-
Spartaaaaa wrote on 2011-08-04 01:55
Quote from whocares8128;535120:
How can this be constitutional?
It's not Constitutional at all... which is probably why it's being passed!
-
Yoorah wrote on 2011-08-07 02:39
It's more about piracy and national security than anything else, really. Personally, I don't care that much. It sucks the most for the pirating parasites, as well as ISPs, which will now have to store a ridiculous amount of logged data. >_>
Whether something is considered constitutional or not doesn't really matter if the subject deals with more real problems (or if it appears this way to the people in charge).
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-08-07 02:43
And we are one step closer to a police state.
Surprise surprise.
No not really. It's only a matter of time before the government becomes like China and censors our day to day web activities.
I'm beginning to like Republicans less and less. Always wanting to monitor and control EVERYTHING.
Damn Bastards. I dislike Republicans. I'm more of a conservative. Less government intervention and poking around our lives >.>
-
Excalibuurr wrote on 2011-08-07 02:43
WILL THIS AFFECT MY LOLI DOUJINSHIS, THEY BETTER NOT
-
Yoorah wrote on 2011-08-07 02:51
Quote from Kingofrunes;541516:
And we are one step closer to a police state.
Surprise surprise.
No not really. It's only a matter of time before the government becomes like China and censors our day to day web activities.
I'm beginning to like Republicans less and less. Always wanting to monitor and control EVERYTHING.
Damn Bastards. I dislike Republicans. I'm more of a conservative. Less government intervention and poking around our lives >.>
These kind of new laws are needed because what you do online is harder to track (and punish if you do something bad) compared to stuff you do in "real life." Again, the easiest example is online theft aka piracy. If you steal something IRL, the chance someone will see you and track you down is pretty high. Online? Nope. This is why change is required--and sadly, it's the bad people who are forcing these changes to be implemented and impact everyone else.
And support for this sort of stuff is bipartisan, from what I remember.
Quote from Excalibuurr;541517:
WILL THIS AFFECT MY LOLI DOUJINSHIS, THEY BETTER NOT
OH YES IT WILL.
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-08-07 02:53
Quote from Yoorah;541530:
These kind of new laws are needed because what you do online is harder to track (and punish if you do something bad) compared to stuff you do in "real life." Again, the easiest example is online theft aka piracy. If you steal something IRL, the chance someone will see you and track you down is pretty high. Online? Nope. This is why change is required--and sadly, it's the bad people who are forcing these changes to be implemented and impact everyone else.
And support for this sort of stuff is bipartisan, from what I remember.
OH YES IT WILL.
Well, I just don't want them to go too far with it. A little bit of control is one thing, but the government CAN get carried away with control.
-
Yoorah wrote on 2011-08-07 02:56
Yes, it can. Sad indeed, but this is reality. You just have to hope that they won't abuse this power. Kind of like you hoping that you won't run into an asshole cop on the highway that would abuse his authority in some way or whatever.
-
Kingofrunes wrote on 2011-08-07 02:59
Quote from Yoorah;541534:
Yes, it can. Sad indeed, but this is reality. You just have to hope that they won't abuse this power. Kind of like you hoping that you won't run into an asshole cop on the highway that would abuse his authority in some way or whatever.
Which happens from time to time sadly :sigh: