View Single Post
Old 01-22-2012, 07:09 PM   #23
xg4bx
Are you gonna eat that?
xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.xg4bx ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
xg4bx's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,633
Karma: 23215128
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ
Device: Kindle 3, Nook STG
these may have been shelved but theres still ACTA and the Protect Children from Internet Pornography plans out there-

"ACTA is an international trade agreement currently negociated by the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Australia as well as a few other countries, whose aim is to enforce copyright and tackle counterfeited goods (hence its acronym: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement).

The main problem with this treaty is that all the negociations are done secretely. Leaked documents show that one of the major goal of the treaty is to force signatory countries into implementing anti file-sharing policies under the form of three-strikes schemes and net filtering practices."

http://www.stopacta.info/

""The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American." Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it."

"As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn't require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history -- being suspected of any crime is enough. (It may even be made available in civil matters like divorce trials or child custody battles.) Nor do police need probable cause to search this information. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner says, (R-Wisc.) "It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I'm not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...r-good/242853/


"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.

It represents "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20...snooping-bill/
xg4bx is offline   Reply With Quote