By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dogs Rule on 20 May 2008
Edit Thread
ssj12 said:
twesterm said:
ssj12 said:


twest - i agree with Dog. It is eating away at our liberties.

Lets quote Ben Frankin

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

 


 The problem with taking random quotes from random places is they are often taken out of context.  I'm sure that quote is talking about something that doesn't involve trying to actually protect people and prevent horrible crimes.

Like I've said, you can either be stubborn and stick to your guns for absolutely no good reason or you can actually realize that something like that would go a *veyr* long way in stopping crimes like terrorist attacks or people epxloiting children on the internet. 


 Yes there is a major difference between a country defending against attacks from another country and a country defending against a group of people. There is the massive difference between an organized army hell bent in taking over a country and reshaping it into what they want and an armed terrorist organization that is hell bent in taking over a country and reshaping it into what they want.  Massive difference there.. massive... did I say massive?

As for protecting children, this might help. But really is it going stop this completely or just make it so child molestors will have to learn to encrypt their networks making them nearly impossible to track? Ya, doing this would be the wrong way of going about this issue. The better idea would be to setup a dedicated internet defence force whose sole purpose is to stop the crimes against children.

If you like the idea of this database, you think that lawsuits around the world are bad? get ready to see the music, movies, gaming, and software industry gain access to the information and sue atleast a half billion people. Especially if this idea takes root in other countries. The lawsuits could end up destroying many countries, including the USA.

Sovereign immunity would allow the government to tell anyone who tried to subpoena the contents of the database to go eff themselves, which it would do "in the name of national security."