Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

34 ISPs Subpoenaed By U.S. Government

Posted by Zonk on Fri Mar 31, 2006 09:33 AM
from the fighting-the-man dept.
Privacy The Internet United States Government Politics
seanonymous writes "The Justice Department, in their continued effort to revive questionable legislation, has subpoenaed dozens of ISPs for files. Considering that ISPs generally host their users' mail, this seems like it could be a larger issue than their fight with Google over search queries. Some, like Verizon, even resisted the call for information." From the article: "Representatives for McAfee and Symantec confirmed that the companies had received and complied with the subpoenas. A spokeswoman at LookSmart did not immediately return a phone call. Many of the subpoenas asked for information related to products that can be used to filter out adult content for underage Internet users. Symantec's subpoena, dated June 29, asked for a wide range of information about the price and popularity of the Internet filtering products it sells and how the products are used by customers. " Information Week has a number of the documents involved, including the letter of objection from Verizon.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Offsite: Justice Department Subpoenas Reach Far Beyond Google
Offsite: More Subpoenas in Suit Over Obscenity Law
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

34 ISPs Subpoenaed By U.S. Government 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Damn... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2006, @09:41AM (#15033699)
    Orwell was only off by two decades. Makes you wonder if the government uses his book as a guide?
    • Just this administration. The last administration tried this type of stupidity too, but apparently the Democrats are smart enough to say "oh, gee, it failed, let's go do something else", whereas this administration is, apparently, hellbent on creating some degree of facism before its time is up in 08.

      Maybe that should be the Democratic platform for 2008: "Yes, we'll try to intimidate and oppress you too, but unlike Bush's friends, we'll just give up if it doesn't work the first time!"

      I'm voting Democrat. Al

  • Says it all, really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dtsazza (956120) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:43AM (#15033713)
    FTFA:
    "There's a real question as to why the government didn't do all this fact finding first before enacting such a broad law that imposes severe criminal and civil sanctions."

  • I just don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2006, @09:43AM (#15033715)
    Can somebody please explain why it is that the DoJ is being allowed to write all these subpoenas anyway? I didn't think they had any legal right to do so.

    Is this just a simple matter of the DoJ assuming that at least some of the corporations will decide it's faster to comply, than to argue for their privacy?

    • Re:I just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hackstraw (262471) * on Friday March 31 2006, @10:28AM (#15034060) Homepage
      Can somebody please explain why it is that the DoJ is being allowed to write all these subpoenas anyway? I didn't think they had any legal right to do so.

      Its borderline legal. These are _civil_ subpoenas. They are not criminal ones. There is no crime involved. Porn is legal. Anybody, including the government can sue anybody in the US, but I don't understand why judges are granting these subpoenas being that nothing can come from the data collected. I don't understand why they forgot about the 1st and 4th amendments.

    • For just once, I wish the government would "Protect the Children(tm)" without *Squashing My Rights* !

      You ever notice how gov't acts named things like "Protection of Families" or "Protection of Marriage" or "Protection of Children" or "Protection from Terrorists" mainly serve to limit or take away legal protections and rights from the people?

      I'm scared of my gov't trying to "Protect" me anymore than they already do. I think I have the right to make my own choices and live with the consequences as lon
      • Why would the DoJ not have subpoena powers in this case? They are gathering evidence to argue a case before a court, why in the world would they NOT have the ability to subpoena the information they need to argue their case?

        Because there is no evidence that the information is relevant. A citizen can't just bring a case before the court and ask for information on the government just because they beleive it's crucial to the case.

        "Your honor, I beleive the confession that will prove my innosense has bee

  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:45AM (#15033733)
    I was under the impression that for any seiziure of private property for investigation, there had to be a reasonable suspicion that there was a crime commited.

    So now "not helping the government" is a crime in and of itself?

    • Easy Answer... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by woolio (927141) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:55AM (#15033812) Journal
      So now "not helping the government" is a crime in and of itself?

      Easy, "if you're not for us, you're against us"

    • I was under the impression that for any seiziure of private property for investigation, there had to be a reasonable suspicion that there was a crime commited.

      That's the great thing about being the government. In order to pursue your own agenda, you get to strong-arm people. I'm sure for many kinds of investigations, the government can compel your assistance.

      However, compelling your assistance to gather information to fight a supreme court ruling that a law you enacted was illegal -- I don't think should

  • Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MasJ (594702) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:46AM (#15033739) Homepage

    Hmm.. I do think that this is getting a bit out of hand now. I'm glad that some of "them" do resist the calls for information, but for how long ? After all, most resources are controlled by the government and they're capable of putting an enormous amount of pressure on said corporations.

    I don't quite understand the US governments crusade against online porn and for child protection. Is it just a ploy to gain votes ? It's however scary to see such a breach of privacy, even if on a small scale. IMO, this could grow into things much bigger.

    I work with online advertising (read that I have a couple of websites..), and I want to share something with my fellow slashdotters. Many of you must have heard of/seen Google Adsense. Well, MS's response to that, MSN Adcenter launched in Beta a few months ago and I've been working with that. One look inside that interface and it is shocking to see the kind of targetting they're capable of. If they can target so well, they obviously have an ENORMOUS amount of information on folks on the internet. Just an example of their penetration, you can choose to target to "Unmarried Men in the age group of 30-35 in the state of New York with incomes in the rage of $100,000". (We all know what those ads are ;)) I saw this and was like "WHAT ?! How the hell are they supposed to have so much information on a person who's just opened a website to see some stuff.."

    Well, my point is that all this information that lies with MSN, Google, etc. CAN be accessed by the government, and as an individual worried about my privacy, this is alarming.

    I think it's time we all scroogled [scroogle.org]. (and no, this is not a promotional post :))

    • Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:06AM (#15033883)
      I don't quite understand the US governments crusade against online porn

      Religious people don't just want to remove [insert_immoral_action_here] from their own life. They beleive it is their sacred duty to prevent everyone else from doing it as well. Regardless of the law everyone's agreed to live under.

      Remember, this is the president who actually beleives god instructs him personally
      • Remember, this is the president who actually beleives god instructs him personally
        Great, so the most powerful man in the most powerful nation has an imaginary friend who tells him what to do !

        Aren't there laws about that ?

      • So, I just reread Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale" and, its really scary and very pertinent to these sorts of discussions. I'm not trying to be sensationalist, but if you look around at what's happening in the US, its not hard to see how easy it would be to end up in Atwood's world. And this is how it starts -- gather information about people's unsavory practices... next, whittle away at people's rights while spawning just enough fear to keep down objections. Create a mysterious external enemy to focus
      • Many religious people DO wish to impose their moral law on the entire society, however, not all do. It's important that you realize that "religious" people aren't just cookie cutters of everyone else--there are different "religious people".

        As a dedicated Christian (and a Libertarian), I believe everyone has free will to do as they choose. If you choose to do something which I personally don't believe in--that's your choice. For me to tell you that you cannot do something "sinful" is to impose on your personal freedom. Nor is it really helpful--I don't help you know God any better by making you follow my rules. Christianity isn't about making people not "sin", it's about knowing God.

        It is expected in our culture that children are not yet adults. They are limited in both the actions that they can choose (and the consequences--being tried as a juvenile is less severe than being tried as an adult). Most people would not support a mandatory bike (not motorcycle) helmet law for everyone, but most would support a mandatory child bike helmet law. As a culture, it is generally understood that children do not have all of the freedoms that we enjoy as adults.

        For that reason, there is a group of people which believes that it's societies' obligation to "protect" children from Pornography, which they consider harmful. Although I realize that you most likely do not view pornography as harmful, those that do wish to protect children in the same way as those who wish to pass mandatory child helmet laws. From their point of view, their beliefs are consistent.

        The way that the Government is going about subpoenaing for information is wrong. There are a number of ways to collect such information without infringing on the privacy of its citizens. However, it's much more convienant to infringe on our rights (and our Government certainly doesn't care about rights), rather than collect information in a non-invasive way, so they've chosen to invade our privacy.

        Please realize that not all "religious" people have a similar viewpoint as those who generally disregard our rights. I too believe that God instructs me personally. I am not a puppet, but I do choose to live my life following the plan he has laid out for me. And by no means do I agree with many of the things that our Government is doing, as I feel that many of them are infringing on our personal freedoms. Realize that religion is often used as a tool to achieve personal goals, rather than knowing God. Don't blame God for the choices that people make when they USE God to support their Goal. That would be like me blaming you for the war in Iraq, even if you had opposed it from the onset.

        I'm truly sorry that you have had so many negative experiences with people who profess to know God in your life. It's a shame, and it's a disservice to him.
    • Several years ago, there was a program on PBS looking into how such detailed data developed. A lot of it is a consequence of having open public records e.g., birth and death records, real estate sales records,... Companies hire people, who sit in local court houses transcribing open records into computer databases. These records are tied to publically available census records. Thru information on home values, for example, they can guesstimate family income. From census data they can determine typical d
    • I'm glad that some of "them" do resist the calls for information, but for how long?

      Precisely why I run my own mail server. My mail goes to my house on a machine I own. It might pass through a relay or two on its way, but generally mai lonly passes from the sender's ISP to my network. Same with my web presence, etc. While I do generally trust my ISP to keep my information secure, I trust myself a lot more. And since I qualify as an ISP due to the way information passes through my machines, the laws do a

  • News flash (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath (38547) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:48AM (#15033750)
    Private information can be subpeonaed. The Internet didn't change that.

    • Private information can be subpeonaed. The Internet didn't change that.

      Private information can be subpeonaed for good and just reasons for a criminal investigation under guidelines of the constitution. The war on terror didn't change that.

      Or well... wasn't supposed to. The problem is that we are making crimes out of things that shouldn't be crimes and making a legal system so convoluted that all one has to do is look at a long list of secret laws and pick one that you have happened to have violated (unbekno

  • Where are the churches? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eccles (932) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:48AM (#15033754) Journal
    Generally the objections to adult materials come from religious groups. So why aren't they funding authoring of good content filters? Tithing adds up to a lot of money. A few million from the Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. would be enough to fund a quality programming group, which could then distribute filtering software for free. Add a few folks to monitor domains, and make judgements on the "adultness" of the content (something like an extended version of the TV ratings), and you would have a service lots of parents would love to have, church-going or not.

    But perhaps the desire to control others runs too deep.

  • Really? Porn? (Score:5, Funny)

    by zoidbergwins (954965) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:48AM (#15033757)
    Why is the government so concerned about controlling children's access to porn latley? Have the children found a way to extract oil from internet porn?

  • Data collection (Score:4, Insightful)

    by liliafan (454080) * on Friday March 31 2006, @09:49AM (#15033762) Homepage
    Does anyone else find that the current trend by the government to collect any and all information they can to be a little spooky, the recent fuss about the NSA phone taps on US citizens sanctioned by the president, all these attempts to get information on peoples internet habits from search engines and ISP's. It is easy to say but think about the children, or think about the terrorists and any other sugar coating they decide to place on it, but the end result is the government is building a very large database of information on US citizens.

    Seriously even if this online child protection act fails they still have all the information they are requesting, what is to stop this information being cross indexed with the phone tap information, and credit information and anything else they may be gathering end result a rather worrying profile of a large cross section of the US population.

    I am usually not a paranoid person I don't subscribe to most conspiracy theories but this is a rather worrying invasion of personal privacy, at this rate bring in a few psychiatrists to review the files they are building on you and build a profile next thing you know you get a knock on the door from the feds arresting you because your physiological profile indicates a possible threat to the internal security of the US in the future, because of your worrying desire to take a vacation in Eygpt and since Eygpt is a mostly islamic nation you must be a terrorist.

  • Little Brother (Score:5, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:49AM (#15033764) Homepage Journal
    Republicans stand for small, limited, noninvasive government. Personal freedom, corporate independence.

    • Re:Little Brother (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:26AM (#15034041) Homepage Journal
      Moderators have already assigned insight into the satirical, sarcastic, parodic style of my post about Republicans. But some people [slashdot.org] apparently aren't so sure.

      To be clear: the current Republican government (controlling the White House for 5 years, both houses of Congress for as long as 12 years) lies when it tells you that it stands for small, limited, noninvasive government. These Republicans lie when they say they stand for personal freedom. And they're lying about corporate independence, too. They want corporate dependence on government, for government to do their competing for them, to prop them up with corporate welfare whenever possible, whether they need it or not. They are fascists, who merge corporate and government power.

      These Republicans will search your email, surveil you from unmanned drones over your hometown or Spring Break, tap your phones, kidnap you and send you to Guantanamo to be tortured. They'll steal your taxes as collateral on unsupportable debt you'll have to pay for generations, and give the money to their corporate cronies. Who will not only fail to protect you when your home is destroyed by years of paying contractors for useless infrastructure, but will actively prevent individuals from helping you survive with gun-enforced useless bureaucracy.

      But maybe I'm just not seeing the Republican vision at the end of the long, hard slog. Maybe that "small, limited, noninvasive government" really is coming. The personal freedom and corporate independence of humanity's natural state: anarchy and warlordism. Just how Marx predicted capitalism would eventually burn itself out. Then the only hypocrisy in the Republican plan is naming themselves after Plato's description of a representative government.
      • I have to agree with you. What amazes me is that more people can't see it. How gullible is the general population? I am constantly baffled by the simple shit that gets pulled by the current adminstration/congress and there is NO response from the public. scary.

  • And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Buddy_DoQ (922706) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:49AM (#15033765) Homepage
    The fight for the Internet has just gone global. Looking to help China is great, fabulous, noble and all, but the time to focus on America is now. ISP's are clamoring for tiered networks, the government is looking to legislate censorship (it only starts with protecting the kids, soon it will be to protect EVERYONE,) and the entertainment industry is suing people left and right for sharing, which I'm sure will lead to regulation of P2P traffic.

    The question is this, do we continue with this network as it is now, let the man direct the traffic and install his regulations, or do we the geeks of the world build a new Internet in the hopes of even one more day of geekish freedom?

    • Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2006, @10:31AM (#15034090)
      No offence, but if all the people who posted comments like this were helping with / donating to projects like Freenet 0.7 [freenetproject.org] and i2p [i2p.net] we would probably have fairly robust and usable strong anonymity / censorship resistance networks by now.

      Fight against this authoritarian bullshit sure, but we badly need to prepare for the preservation of freedom in a 'soft' police state, because that's where we're heading right now.

  • Parents (Score:3, Insightful)

    by szembek (948327) on Friday March 31 2006, @09:57AM (#15033822) Homepage
    This just in: Having solved all other problems, the US gov't has decided to waste our tax money and invade our privacy because apparently parents don't know how to be parents. Porn is out there. Parents must realize this and if they feel their children shouldn't see it, then don't let them! Put the PC in the living room or some other common area. Install a filter. I've never used one, but I'm sure they're not all bad. Why does the government have to get involved?

  • It's never been easier to be a parent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:04AM (#15033865) Homepage
    Oh modern American parents are so busy that they cannot keep track of little johnny or susie. They can't watch the media they buy, they can't notice needle tracks, slutty/pimp cloths, etc. But wait, others claim that they can't regulate what their kids do and see when they go outside. Huh? When has that ever been the case? Heroin used to be sold at general stores alongside whiskey and military-grade firearms. Softcore porn has been around in America in small, but noticable numbers for over a hundred years. It's always been there, and then some, but never before have parents had so many self-enforcing controls like content filtering, V-Chips, etc.

    Parents have **never** had control of what their kids are exposed to when they go to a neighbor's house. It's a basic fact of life. If parents did their jobs, instead of pursuing wealth for its own sake, their kids would have a very hard time getting porn. But how are they going to do that when both parents work because neither of them wants to give up their job for selfish reasons like self-fullfillment. Can't give up your uber-fullfilling job? Don't have kids. You can't "have it all," despite what the fucktard feminists and their male counterparts have claimed for decades. Being a parent is a fulltime job, not a babysitting job.

    We don't need this damn law because kids only get access to porn when parents refuse to be parents. I can perfectly well understand a woman not giving up a job as an artist or scientist, but most of the girls I saw at college were headed for jobs like human resources. Anyone, regardless of gender, who won't give up a shitty ass job like that for their kids to keep them raised right is a selfish bastard who deserves to be sterilized.

    My girlfriend's mom gave up a job as a realtime assembly and Ada programmer to homeschool her. My mom gave up her job as a GSA IG agent in the early 80s to be a stay at home mom, despite the fact that she'd be probably a GS14 or GS15 today knowing how good she was at her job. What's every other "fullfilled" office monkey's excuse for valuing their job more than their kids' mental, physical and spiritual health? I don't care how you have to do it, but the person who makes less and has less prospects for making money should give up their job and be a full time, stay at home parent. Either that or those who refuse to do it should just hand their kids over to the government to raise fulltime instead of the part time parenting known as public schooling.

  • I love porn! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hackstraw (262471) * on Friday March 31 2006, @10:04AM (#15033869) Homepage

    First, this proves that the government's infamous "Carnivore" either does not exist or does not work. Which is nice.

    Second, this proves that something is wrong with the government.

    Porn is legal and good. The quality and quantity that you can get now is astounding, and most of it is served straight from the US in very high speed, and the companies comply with all laws, or at least as many if not more than other companies.

    Porn is legal. Subpoenaing ISPs and snooping into our business is not legal.

    I'm guessing that this is yet another attempt by the feds to get more control of its people they work for, and they are just disguising it as one of those "think of the children" things so that women and the like will say, "Well its for the greater good, right?"

    If they really wanted to look for porn, subpoena CCBill, subpoena a porn website, subpoena credit card companies, or bank records. Oh, that might not slip under the "save the children radar" of the courts and the people. So, lets just look at ISP records for now, later....

    • Re:I love porn! (Score:3, Informative)

      by mosch (204)
      First, this proves that the government's infamous "Carnivore" either does not exist or does not work. Which is nice.


      Not at all. Do you really think the spy agencies would publicly reveal one of their most valuable assets, just to get some stupid DoJ pet project finished?

      This does nothing to confirm or deny the existence of echelon/carnivore/any other massive government snoop operations.

  • Mandatory Content Filtering (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:07AM (#15033889) Homepage Journal
    This is where we are headed.

    Once this point is reached, does that mean all content providers lose their 'common carrier' status and are now liable?

  • Cripe (Score:5, Informative)

    by spellraiser (764337) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:07AM (#15033893) Journal
    Is it just me, or are the DOJ's demands ridiculously numerous and far-reaching? A typical subpoena request 29 separate items, many of which are pretty, well, general. Consider, for example, this item from the Comcast subpoena [cmpnet.com] (PDF Alert):
    27. Studies indicating the number ofwebsites with pornographic content available on the World Wide Web, the proportion of such websites in comparison to the number of all websites on the World Wide Web, and/or the proportion of websites with pornographic content produced or created in the United States in comparison to such websites produced or created elsewhere.

    Why on Earth is a humble ISP supposed to provide the DOJ with this information, and how are they supposed to do it? And why doesn't the DOJ just research this themselves if this is such a big deal for them?

  • Standard reply to subpoena like that of Comcast (Score:4, Insightful)

    by InsaneProcessor (869563) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:15AM (#15033948)
    Sirs:
    Due to the complex nature of the requested data and the security requried to gaurd such data, we must clear this information throught the board of directors and shareholders of this company. Also, due to the volume of data, we will take at least three years to collect such information. Please be advised that we intend to comply with the subpeona but your data will not be available until March 6, 2010.
    We will keep you informed of the progress.

    Sincerly,
    Corpoerate Red Tape Caused By Government Beauracracy

  • What's the motivation for content filters? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by halosfan (691623) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:24AM (#15034019) Homepage

    I'm a parent of a 6-year old girl. She's been using the Web since she was old enough to use a computer (3 years old? perhaps, 2+). Her mom has often asked me to install a content filter.

    I have long since learned that to come up with a solution, you have to understand the problem first. So, I just watched my kid's online behavior trying to see what she can get to that I don't want her to see. The result? I still don't have any content filters installed to this day. Why? Porn is of no interest to her whatsoever. She goes to various kids' sites. If she wants to search for something, I taught her to use google instead of typing random words into the URL bar. As a result, it is very rarely (as in, once a year) that she gets to see an image of a nude person on the Web. Her reaction so far was to navigate away from such a web site. And if she shows any interest, I feel I would be able to explain to her what was going on. I mean, she doesn't believe in tooth fairies, and she figured that Mickey Mouse was a costume when she was 3, so why wouldn't she be able to figure out the rest of the real world?

    Of course, I might be missing something, but then I'm wondering what that is?

  • Govt. to Subpeona "The Woods" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:28AM (#15034055) Homepage Journal
    In an effort to reduce children's exposure to pornography, the U.S. Government today subpeonaed all existing forests and wooded areas. "It's commonly known that the second greatest, and before the internet the greatest risk for children's exposure to obscene materials stems from finding porn in the woods," said State Department representative Ms. Fascista McRedstate. "The fight against standing timber is the fight to save our children."

  • Apparently the War on Terra is over! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Catbeller (118204) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:39AM (#15034157) Homepage
    The Justice Department doesn't seem to have anything to do. All the real crime in the U.S. has been eliminated, so they're moving on to thought crimes. God knows what teenagers would do if they found out sex existed.

    I, for one, welcome our aimless overlords.

  • My Story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cytlid (95255) * on Friday March 31 2006, @10:54AM (#15034254) Homepage
    I'm an admin at an ISP... who's newsgroup servers were confiscated in 1998 (before I worked here) by a certain Attorney General, and set sort of a legal precident for ISPs. (The guy did it as a PR stunt, he was up for re-election. If you search google, you can find the story).

      I've never understood the need for filters. Sure, there's "bad stuff" out there on the internet. And I have a teenager in the house. I *know* he goes to porn sites, and I don't care. I care when he gets viruses on his machine from those sites, that's about it. (Of course, he is a bit older).

      Parents (and political types), here's the formula. Send your kid's machines' through a proxy. You can control where they go from there. You can see whatever site they go to, etc. Don't want them online when you're not around? Setup special policies. (Aka, on a router). Internet time is 6-10pm, etc. You can enforce this in the router. I'm not saying every parent has to be an admin, but I am saying every parent should know more about the Internet than their kids. Don't allow the federal government to enable you to be lazy.

      This works! It works wonders! It's called ... ready, something conservative types should know about: BEING A PARENT. Wow, we *don't* need filters, and magic subpeonas and laws.

      Why are we wasting our time finding difficult solutions to easy problems? Is our government really that dumb, beuracratic and full of red tape? Since when did the government become the parents of every kid in America? Is that what you're trying to accomplish here?

  • Sublte (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g0bshiTe (596213) on Friday March 31 2006, @10:54AM (#15034255)
    Here we go again. Wasn't it posted here in the last few days about the .XXX bieng shot down again?

    Seems to me this is a redherring, if there were a .XXX and all porn related material had to be there, then you would not need consumers using products or apps to block this stuff.

    But let's let the government waste money and time to get whatever information they are seeking under the guise of "it's for the children".

    I'm a parent myself, I have an 8 year old. My child has their own computer in their room, and it has net access. I also have a proxy server which limits the places that pc can do on the net and where it can go. It is currently setup to goto child related websites that I have browsed myself and verified the content. Why did I do this?
    Because it is [b]MY[/b] responsability to raise my child and know what content they are seeing.

    Big brother will be moving in soon enough, I want him to enjoy some sense of personal freedom before they are all stripped away.

    • Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Snowman (116231) * <john@johngaughan.net> on Friday March 31 2006, @09:50AM (#15033770) Homepage

      You know, I look at that and wonder.. reminds me of MS, they can't solve a problem themselves so beat it out of someone else who might have the solution. Except this is the government, I'm afraid to see how far they'll go to do what they want... I'm not just being paranoid am I?

      What they're doing is trying to set up a case to argue that Congress needs to legislate more censorship and regulations to protect Americans from our own freedoms. What they should do is get their goddamn hand out of the pot and let the market decide what it needs. Do people want web filtering to protect their children? Let them pay for filters, or even better, take a hands-on approach with their children online. Either way, this is between consumers and producers. I don't see how the government belongs in this picture.

      One of the most irritating things I find about television is the censorship. Even on shows that are above average as far as the brainpower of their target audience (e.g. Mythbusters), I find that I have to listen to goddamn beeps and blips all the time. I say let them swear, and don't censor it. If people don't like it, they won't watch, and will hopefully tell the producers why. Even better, implement some sort of on-demand filtering so my cable box censors it if I choose. Conservative Christian? Turn it on. Everyone else? Turn it off, enjoy the language. The same it true of the Internet. I don't want the FCC or Congress telling me what I can and cannot see or do online. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. If I choose not to expose myself or my children to certain content, I will either not go to those sites, or I will allow the free market to provide content filtering software to me.

      By the way, I don't usually watch much TV. Partly because of the mind-numbing dullness and idiocy, partly because I cannot stand censorship. I want my swear words!

      • Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hackstraw (262471) * on Friday March 31 2006, @10:24AM (#15034018) Homepage
        What they should do is get their goddamn hand out of the pot and let the market decide what it needs. Do people want web filtering to protect their children? Let them pay for filters, or even better, take a hands-on approach with their children online. Either way, this is between consumers and producers. I don't see how the government belongs in this picture.

        I of course agree, but this is NOT about "the children".

        Its disguised that way, its completely, as well put by the parent to:

        to set up a case to argue that Congress needs to legislate more censorship and regulations to protect Americans from our own freedoms.

        and I'll expand, by adding to limit our freedoms.

        In talking with a friend last night, he believes that we are heading towards being a 3rd world country. And this guy is juiced into the government, bigtime. Former DOE and NSF guy, and still sucks grant money all the time. He said that the discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" is going to keep expanding. Housing prices are through the roof. The banking, oil, and insurance companies pretty much rule this country, etc.

        It won't affect me in my lifetime, nor probably my children, but after that, I have no predictions that are positive with the direction things are going.

      • Even better, implement some sort of on-demand filtering so my cable box censors it if I choose.

        The ClearPlay DVD player will take a file from ClearPlay to use to skip objectionable portions. Both the MPAA and the Directors Guild of America sued ClearPlay. The MPAA claimed it created a derivative work, the DGA claimed it harmed the brand name of its member directors.

    • Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Friday March 31 2006, @09:51AM (#15033775) Homepage Journal
      I'm not just being paranoid am I?

      No, you're not, especially with a DoJ run by someone who has openly endorsed torture (in terrorism cases, not obscenity, granted -- but just wait to see how long it is before we start hearing "Al-Qaeda is funded by porn sites!") Microsoft is big and bad and scary, but the government is a great deal scarier.

      Think selective enforcement. Realistically, everyone knows they're never going to get rid of internet porn, and they're never going to keep kids from seeing the stuff. That's not really the point. What is the point is that this law, if upheld, will give them a club to hold over the head of every single person in the US who posts anything on the web, ever, as well as the service providers which provide the hosting space, if even one of those postings contains a dirty word or risque picture. It doesn't mean they'll break down your door in the middle of the night -- but it means they can, if you piss them off enough. And you'll never know what constitutes "enough" until you're in handcuffs.
        • I'd suggest that it's safest for him if he move out of the country, but, realistically, the Freemasons are scattered throughout the world, and they are likely to catch him wherever he goes. Their tie to the Illuminati is obvious, and it is also obvious that the Illuminati is behind all of this.

          I think that he needs to run to the mountains of Montana, move into a cave, and then build a faraday cage IN that cave to block the signals from the RFID chip implanted in his brain. Just to be safe, he should wear

    • Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Friday March 31 2006, @09:58AM (#15033826) Homepage Journal
      I am all for stamping out child porn, it is sick and damaging.

      Careful -- you've already fallen for their manipulation of the language. They're hoping that by using the words "children" and "pornography" in close conjunction, you'll automatically think, "Oh, child porn, we've got to get rid of that!" But COPA has nothing to do with child porn; it has to do (allegedly) with children seeing porn on the web -- the vast bulk of which is not child porn; it's regular old-fashioned adult porn. Conflating the (very mild, and entirely within the parents' domain) issue of little Johnny looking at dirty pictures with the (very serious, and entirely criminal already) problem of child porn is a cynical and dangerous political ploy.

    • Re:Wipe your Ass with the Bill of Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Friday March 31 2006, @12:55PM (#15035329)
      I cant wipe my ass with it, it already has shit all over it.

      The country is failing. The ride is over. All great nations fall, and when they do, they fall fast, and hard.

      Its over.

      Our people do not think like the Americans of old. There is no tolerance or American idealism. It's now about control and the people are too complacent and out matched.

      They've been brainwashed by corperate media for the past 10 years. Conservative radio has bread intolerance and arrogance in the name of "good" But had nothing to do with "American ideals"

      People have gotten so twisted, that the American idealology of old, is lost. We're widdling away at our country because we can. Our people like to tinker and blaim, so they keep chopping away at the country, for it is to blaim for all our problems.

      Freedom is our problem. We can not handle it. We are not tolerant of it anymore. We want it our way, or no way at all.

      You're christian or you are not. You're straight, or you are going to hell. You're on Rush Limbaughs side or you're the enemy. The republicans are always right, truth be damned. We're going to go down with the ship because despite the obvious sinking motion of the boat, we're told that its all ok because its someone else's fault.

      Its over. :) I look at it that way now.

      We're at a real turning point in our existance.

      We actually LIKE slave labor now. We actually want to legalize slave labor. We have no problem with exploiting illegal aliens as long as they clean up our shit. We'll pay them less, we dont even give a shit if they're American citizens... Just as long as they show up and weed wack our lawns.

      This is not America. This is our country as it is now. We welcomed immigrants, and wanted them to be apart of our country... but now we dont care if they're legal, or if we know who they even are... because WE LOVE SLAVE LABOR.

      We are in a decline. We no longer beleive that people are equal, or working men and women deserve a quality life experience.

      We beleive in the ultra rich, and we say the economy is doing great... while the country is in decline. The numbers say everything is great! But the truth is... the rich are simply making more money because they're not employing people. They're spreading around the world, thats why their value goes up, thats why our country looks to be economically fine... But corperations are not beholden to any country anymore. Our country is not doing fine, the corperations are.

      Our people are consistantly getting the short end of the stick in our booming economy.

      The law is out of countrol. Our president is a criminal. Our entire government is currupt. They spend more time fund raising than setting foot in a commitee hearing. They get handed a peice of paper on how to vote by think tanks and outside people who are not elected officials.

      Policy is created by companies, buisness interests. The same people bribing our government elected officials. The same people they're getting funds from when they go and fund raise, when they should instead be representing the people in the house/senate.

      The party holds the line... BOTH OF THEM.

      It's over. They have this thing wrapped up in a nice little messy game of "gotcha"

      And it wont end. Think about it. If you're lucky, you will be alive for 100 years at most. You only have hopefully 100 years on the planet. Truthfully, probably 65 years...

      Do you think the rich power hungry people give a shit about what happens after they're dead?

      Do you think senators and congressmen do? They raise funds to stay in office, so they can be elected and raise more funds to stay in office... It keeps them living a nice life, and then they die. Their children are set for life.

      Do you really care about your neighbor? Do you value your family more than other people?

      I'm betting on "yes". So why in the hell would you think the government gives a dam about you?

      They're taking care of themselves, and th

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.