General discussion


"Big Brother"

By lovicott ·
"Big Brother"
I work at a school that just implemented a new device that records key strokes and notifies of profanity and when a user visits a xrated website. The school is up in arms over this. There have been little signs put up saying "Big Brother is watching" secret meetings the whole nine. Is it a bad thing that we are monitoring out students and teachers. is it a bad thing that we are stopping students and teachers from visiting xrated, My space, the favorite chat programs, and many others. Last month the show Nightline aor a series that used MySpace anfd other sites like it to lure in potential predators. i say ptoential because thay were caught before anything could happen most of the guys caught knew they would be there to meet an underage youth. Who is the "bad guy"?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

445 total posts (Page 4 of 45)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I have been meaning to read "Republic" for many years.

by Absolutely In reply to The taxpayer does not hav ...

Thank you for the reminder.

I simply believe that it is the duty of government to protect the right to individualism, not to decide, nor even consider, how to "encourage" anything. I agree completely with your goal of encouraging more independent and rational children, but I do not trust government, especially obtuse, arrogant, bitter, collectivism, tyrannical, entry-level government bureaucrats to be of any value in achieving that goal.

I apologize for all the adjectives, and their redundancy when juxtaposed with the phrase "entry-level government bureaucrats", but it was necessary, to emphasize the futility of hoping that a collective-minded collection of virtual non-entities will have any ability to encourage individuality in any way.

I thought that misspelling of "achiever" was ironic, and suspect you did it intentionally, btw. You seem pretty astute, and I have more important corrections to make than misspelled words, but in this one case I thought it was pretty sassy. My compliments.

Collapse -


by archimeides In reply to in the interests of scien ...

How in heaven's name does scrutiny = criminalization? Perhaps you should do a little study on the process of and application of law. Our justice system, and this includes for the most part, policy intended at regulation that is not specifically "law" begins as codification. If a regulation is implemented and is subsuquently found to be intrusive or at worst "unconstitutional" then it must be "tested" by being challenged in a judicial or regulatory forum whether in a PTA meeting or at the Supreme Court Level. Seems to me that there's nothing more educational and/or perhaps more IMPORTANT "educationally" than having this process exposed to children. Having children I (and I dare say the affected employees) exposed to this testing process perhaps in this exact controversial subject might do more to EDUCATE than whining about "Big Brother". I don't think anyone said anything about an actual "criminal" aspect to this scenerio. I bet you don't know the difference between a traffic ticket (infraction) and a misdemeanor (criminal)....

Collapse -

crimialization is a social, not legal issue

by sue.hawkins In reply to Criminalization?

Criminalization is when a harmless, albeit distasteful act renders a segment of the population criminals. A good, current example is pot-smoking chemo patients.

Scrutiny = Criminalization when the scrutinizer tattles. Plain and simple.

READ, READ, AND THEN READ SOME. Give up thinking, it's not your forte.

Collapse -


by archimeides In reply to Criminalization?

Who are you judge whether someone's forte is anything?
Are you afraid to look at something simply for what it is? Criminalization is "legislation which makes something legal" - period. I did not see anywhere in the original post anything about criminalization. Your labeling of something as being Criminal is naive especially when the process is nowhere in evidence here.
I suggest that while you critique my thinking prowess you expose your own fascist thought process and paranoia.
You might benefit from a little actual constitutional law education.

Collapse -

A more rigorous definition of "regulations"

by Absolutely In reply to Criminalization?

as opposed to laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but have been paying close attention to this distinction since I began poking smot, which I have quit, btw, everybody (say it out loud until you get it. It?s the best thing I can say about pot that this phrase once seemed fairly amusing to me.). I used to believe that drug "laws" were just silly, now I know that they are malicious, and really a separate class of statute called "regulations", which are by definition incompatible with the Bill of Rights? guarantee of the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Laws protect people by preventing harmful actions.

Regulations harm people by preventing harmless actions according to the premise that certain actions that are sometimes harmful may be prohibited as though they are always harmful, which is an irrational curtailment of individuals' rights to pursue our own happiness (1) as we define happiness, not as you define it (2) to the best of our ability, which makes us happier, better company for you, and more productive, thus more beneficial to society, to the extent that society is competent to profit from productivity. Most of you, apparently, are not!

Some drug users are thieves. Most are not.

Some drug users are rapists. Most are not.

Some drug users are murderers. Most are not.

All thieves, rapists and murderers should be punished. Most drug users should not. Except for the few who are truly, intentionally evil, you who have supported the DEA and the war on the poor, disingenuously described by its evil proponents as a "War on Drugs" have done so on the basis of a "plausibility argument" which is contradicted by all data. Unfortunately, neither is scrutinized by many voters, or very rigorously, for reasons I do not understand nor have any reason to discuss. They are your emotions, which makes them your problems, not mine ? until you make those the basis of statutes that make the world more dangerous for us all, and in this case your irrationality absolutely is my business!

The plausibility argument for drug prohibition is based on symptoms of drug use and your emotional, not intellectual, response to those descriptions. Before you vote again, please examine the "possible side effects" listed on every medicine you have ever taken, or better yet, every one that you know by name. Then compare those side effects to the side effects of illegal drugs as documented in controlled studies, some of which have been conducted on even the most potent "street drugs". Then, examine all data you can find on drug-related assault of any variety & theft, ie legitimate "crimes against persons or property", and see whether all drug users are truly criminals, or just barely more likely to actually be harmful than any sober person.

Collapse -

Laws vs regulations --- and drug use

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Criminalization?

First let me say that I do not think this is the right thread for this discussion and if you really want to discuss it, you should start a new thread with a more appropriate topic. I have not posted in response to the message I wanted to as it has reached maximum depth.

1. Laws are pieces of legislation passed by a legislative body, usually a state or federal body. Many are laws about how people are to act in the community or society, some are on finances - the annual budget is a law as well.

2. Regulations are expansions on laws where the law has given the administrating authority, usually a govt beaurocracy, the right to make sub-laws on how they go about administrating and controlling their area of responsibility under the law. A common example being the speed law setting out that it is unlawful, while the regulation sets out the amount of the fine and how it is paid.

3. Many laws and regulations are passed to protect people from other people's stupidity, many are made to protect people from their own stupidity. And some are made to protect corporate profits because the companies bought off the legislators - The Digital Media Copyright Act is a classic example of that (please start a new thread if you wish to discuss this at length).

4. Most drug laws are based on the premises that they are harmful in the medium to long term, some can be harmful in the short term - eg a drug overdose. Some drug laws are to protect others - eg driving a care whilst under the influence of certain drugs is unlawful as they can warp your senses - because that is what they are designed to do.

Some prohibited drugs are harmful and should be banned, some are less so and can be argued for legality. In the end it comes down to a group decision, exercised via elected representatives (when they have not been bought by corporate entities), as to which are and are not acceptable. Then it comes down to do as the society wants or rebelling against the society and taking the risk - if the later don't ***** if you get caught and punished, you knew what you were doing.

Collapse -

Right wrong, moral, immoral

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Criminalization?

lassiez faire or nanny state, doesn't matter. Criminalisation of drugs is stupid.
There are three sorts of drug related crime.
1) Reduced inhibitions causing someone to ignore the consequences of their actions.
2) Inter-producer wars to secure market share and a serious profit.
3) Crimes committed to support a very expensive habit.

De-criminalise you get rid of 99% of 2 and 3 on the spot, 1 is a lot less of a problem than various people who make money out of 2 and 3 would have you believe.

Drug problems are serious, but criminalising their use just made the problem worse not better.

You can be incapable of driving a car if you over do cough medicine. Anybody been done for being in possession of a bottle of linctus ?

Collapse -

Tony: 1, 2, 3

by Absolutely In reply to Criminalization?

Tony Hopkinson: "There are three sorts of drug related crime.
1) Reduced inhibitions causing someone to ignore the consequences of their actions.
2) Inter-producer wars to secure market share and a serious profit.
3) Crimes committed to support a very expensive habit.

De-criminalise you get rid of 99% of 2 and 3 on the spot, 1 is a lot less of a problem than various people who make money out of 2 and 3 would have you believe."

Not only is your #1 a lot less of a problem than people believe, but in the absence of persecution, people's faculties are less bothered whilst under the influence because we don't have the added stress of secrecy to bother us.

Deadly Ernest: "First let me say that I do not think this is the right thread for this discussion and if you really want to discuss it, you should start a new thread with a more appropriate topic."

Thank you, for exemplifying the hypocritical approach of all supporters of drug prohibition! In the same post in which you tell me that I'm posting about drug legalization/prohibition in the wrong thread, you include 5 paragraphs of your own on the same subject!

This glaring logical contradiction leads me to conclude that your contradictions were intentional, and thank you for helping me to make my point, which is: the solution to any problem is best achieved by identifying it precisely, and its causes, in order of statistical correlation. And folks, when it comes to drugs, violence is correlated to more regulations, not to fewer of them.

Collapse -

Absolutely - look at the original post

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Criminalization?

This thread is about the use of a keystroke logger to manage access to porn sites. One section has split off into other areas and is now covering the use of illicit drugs. This section has reached maximine thread depth and makes further posts harder. I suggested that if you wish to discuss the use or legalisation of drugs then you should start a thread with a title that indicates as such and do it properly. Laws, right or wrong, is not about big brother watching which is the widest way you could interprete the thread title.

Before you start labelling people about being
"exemplifying the hypocritical approach of all supporters of drug prohibition" you should try finding something out about them. My post was in response to your post, as is this one, so I responded to your post and all that was in it. I also said you should start a new thread if you wanted to discuss this properly. And you see my being courteous as being hypocritical, that says a lot about your biased view point.

BTW Here in Australia we have things called Royal Commissions, kind of like the USA Joint House Investigative Committees - in the past I have put submissions to Royal Commission into the Use of Drugs recommending the decriminalisation of them for reasons similar to what you suggest. However, I also recognise that there are problems with ensuring the safety of the other members of the community with regards to the use of many drugs, some illicit some not. This issue is not simple and has many wider ramifications than can be dealt with in two or three short posts.

Collapse -

Deadly Ernest: 3, 2, 1...

by Absolutely In reply to Criminalization?

3. I read the original post. I also read the messages to which I replied, one of which asserted something about "criminalization", then another about regulation, and from there my comments about drug prohibition were part of a smooth segue, and an apt example of the evil inherent in laws that limit liberty but do not address actions that are harmful in and of themselves.

2. I do not see your "being courteous as being hypocritical," I see your failure to obey your own advice as hypocritical. Get a good dictionary before you argue this point further.

1. I'm glad you're an advocate of decriminalisation, but the issue is, in fact, simple. The behavior of "drug abusers" ("poor abused cannabis, did that smoker hurt you?") that constitutes a legitimate complaint is not the use of drugs, but choices that only a few abusers make, to harm others or deprive them of property, and those actions are illegal, as they should be, without drug prohibition.

Back to IT Employment Forum
445 total posts (Page 4 of 45)   Prev   02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums