Here they come again...
-
Todd C. Wilson wrote: but Congress is gonna make sure that they can prevent you from using them. So there. Get used to it. You're kidding, right? US Congress has no business whatsoever making laws that tell other countries' citizens what they can and can't do while not on US soil. To say otherwise is absolute foolishness. This bill seems to address two separate issues: videotaping people in conditions that are assumed to be 'private', and porn on the internet. It's insane that you can videotape someone legally where, in the same situation, you'd be tried for a federal offense if you just recorded audio. As to the second part of the bill to clean up the internet, I think this is just pie-in-the-sky politic-ing. There's no way that the rest of the world is going to say "Oh, US Congress has just said that we have to do these things differently on the internet now, so let's get to it!". -- Russell Morris "WOW! Chocolate - half price!" - Homer Simpson, while in the land of chocolate.
Russell Morris wrote: You're kidding, right? Partly. Your job is to figure out the sarcasm and the underlying truths of it. Russell Morris wrote: US Congress has no business whatsoever making laws that tell other countries' citizens what they can and can't do while not on US soil. To say otherwise is absolute foolishness. Really. Try telling that to Deutsche Bahn and New Zealand, just to name a few recently. .AU was in the news a while back about similar things too. Once Bush Jr complete's Daddy Bush's 1000 points of light, we'll all be one happy big new world order planet. Then you too can bitch and moan about how things used to be while watching football on your HDTV.
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
my god ... you mean its not american??? do you think george knows this?? --- situations to avoid #37:
"good morning ... how many sugars do you take in your coffee ... and what was your name again?" -
Tom Archer wrote: This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. I think you need to research the initial "acts" that inspired the bill. A man placed hidden cameras all over a neighbors house - in their bedrooms (both parent's and children's) and bathrooms. The family pressed charges and found to their horror that the current laws in their state did not cover this and the man was only charged with a misdeamor. During the investigation, they found he had installed a camera in a small bathroom (located near his backyard swimming pool) of his own house . He had video tapes of many of the neighborhood women and teenaged girls as they changed clothes after being invited to his home by his wife and children. In the end, I think he only paid a very small fine. I agree that if someone does something in public, that they automatically give consent, but that is NOT the case here. Now maybe the proposed bill is too broad in scope, but the intent is basically good.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
You're making an invalid assumption that I don't know what happened. I'm very well aware of the fact that some people have hidden vcams and tape people and that they people have gotten away with it because they didn't record voices (which would have been wire-tapping). I've also seen Ms Harmon (who played a victim on a Lifetime movie) in numerous interviews about this "cause". However, the bill is far too broad and regardless of intent would eventually involve outlawing many other acts that I don't think should be outlawed. This is the game legislatures play all the time. They play up one specific act and in response to it, quickly pass a bill that outlaws many other acts before people realize what's happened. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Tom Archer wrote: This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. I think you need to research the initial "acts" that inspired the bill. A man placed hidden cameras all over a neighbors house - in their bedrooms (both parent's and children's) and bathrooms. The family pressed charges and found to their horror that the current laws in their state did not cover this and the man was only charged with a misdeamor. During the investigation, they found he had installed a camera in a small bathroom (located near his backyard swimming pool) of his own house . He had video tapes of many of the neighborhood women and teenaged girls as they changed clothes after being invited to his home by his wife and children. In the end, I think he only paid a very small fine. I agree that if someone does something in public, that they automatically give consent, but that is NOT the case here. Now maybe the proposed bill is too broad in scope, but the intent is basically good.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
Sounds like the episode of CSI two weeks ago. That is such a good show. Joshua Guy
Sonork ID: 100.9944 ICQ: 519642 Hotmail: JoshuaJGuy@hotmail.com
-
Oh, ok. So in your country you believe in videotaping people having sex and playing it live for paying customers.... without the consent of the people having sex in the first place? Can't wait to see you and your wife in the next online sex movie... :laugh:
You're putting words in my mouth - I have a person that does that already and she's Mrs. Archer :laugh: Seriously, what I'm against is that the law is too broadly worded and would encompass many acts that it should not. I definitely believe in privacy. However, the way the bill is worded if I tape the Mardi Gras party, I would be in violation. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
my god ... you mean its not american??? do you think george knows this?? --- situations to avoid #37:
"good morning ... how many sugars do you take in your coffee ... and what was your name again?"By the way, what's wrong with #37 :) Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? Regardless of what I think of this and other proposed laws, I believe the american goverment has the right to regulate (to a certain limit) the way we americans use the internet. If that has a negative effect on foreign companies trying to make business with us, so be it. The same applies to any country in the world. US laws are not (and cannot) be enforced in foreign countries in the same manner that foreign laws cannot be enforced here.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NET -
Sounds like the episode of CSI two weeks ago. That is such a good show. Joshua Guy
Sonork ID: 100.9944 ICQ: 519642 Hotmail: JoshuaJGuy@hotmail.com
Similar, but in the TV show the guy was trespassing onto other people's property and setting up house in their attic. In the real-life cases, people are setting up vcams in their own homes or places of business. Anyway, CSI is the best show on TV in my opinion followed by the L&O shows (regular, SVU and CI). Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Tom Archer wrote: When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? Regardless of what I think of this and other proposed laws, I believe the american goverment has the right to regulate (to a certain limit) the way we americans use the internet. If that has a negative effect on foreign companies trying to make business with us, so be it. The same applies to any country in the world. US laws are not (and cannot) be enforced in foreign countries in the same manner that foreign laws cannot be enforced here.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NETThat brings up all kinds of other problems, Eddie. For example, as an American citizen do these laws apply to me if the server isn't on US soil? If the content on the server doesn't break the laws where it is present, then I don't think citizenship is the issue. Also, in my particular case I have dual citizenship so how would that affect this? What about an American citizen not living in the US and the server not being in the US. My point is that the whole reason for alot of the problems we're dealing with regarding the Internet and legalities is that this is a brand new paradigm that the legal system hasn't quite figured out and probably won't for a very long time. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Similar, but in the TV show the guy was trespassing onto other people's property and setting up house in their attic. In the real-life cases, people are setting up vcams in their own homes or places of business. Anyway, CSI is the best show on TV in my opinion followed by the L&O shows (regular, SVU and CI). Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Never got into the Law & Order shows, maybe I should give them a second chance, but I'll second that CSI is the best show on tv. Joshua Guy
Sonork ID: 100.9944 ICQ: 519642 Hotmail: JoshuaJGuy@hotmail.com
-
Never got into the Law & Order shows, maybe I should give them a second chance, but I'll second that CSI is the best show on tv. Joshua Guy
Sonork ID: 100.9944 ICQ: 519642 Hotmail: JoshuaJGuy@hotmail.com
Definitely try out SVU. Reg L&O is on tonight. SVU on Fri and CI on Sun. I will admit it took me awhile to cozy up to the CI hip version of Columbo, but it grew on me :) Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
By the way, what's wrong with #37 :) Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: By the way, what's wrong with #3 You should have been gone before she work up :)
-
Several issues here: Renaming of sites: 1) The cost would be huge for many to go out and re-register hundreds of domain names. Remeber this can be anything the US doesn't like - not just porn. It can be legal gambling, political sites that have different views, etc. 2) There are millions of links and banners across the Web that would become dead - causing more costs in updating those links and losing money in that as well as customers not getting to the sites. 3) It's not the US' call to do this. Other ramifications: "...make it illegal to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent" This bit is absolutely unacceptable in a free society. If you do something in public, then in my opinion, you've already given your consent. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
But of course reading further: The bill would not apply to security cameras in private places such as department store dressing rooms, nor would it penalize those filming on city streets or other public places where privacy does not exist. So in fact the part of the bill relating to videoing people seems to be pretty well targeted. Of course bolting the web related stuff on the side is a typical government trick: Attach dubious legislation to reasonable in the hopes that people desire to get the latter passed wont be overwhelmed by their dislike of the former. Of course the other question posed is: Why is acceptable to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent if you happen to be a department store security guard at work? Dan
-
Tom Archer wrote: By the way, what's wrong with #3 You should have been gone before she work up :)
ROTFLMAO!!! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I think that would get you a punch if Lauren could reach you! :) Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
You're putting words in my mouth - I have a person that does that already and she's Mrs. Archer :laugh: Seriously, what I'm against is that the law is too broadly worded and would encompass many acts that it should not. I definitely believe in privacy. However, the way the bill is worded if I tape the Mardi Gras party, I would be in violation. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
I see your point there. I didn't think of that angle. It's interesting, law making as a whole. Back in college I was in a fraternity and was in charge of the chapter's by-laws (and of course computer accounts, web page, etc.). I gotta admit I hate politics and I think alot of it stemmed from that. It was amazing to me how difficult it was to put a "law" down on paper that didn't: 1) Have too many holes in it. 2) Could be used for something else entirely we never even considered. I suppose we're bad about that here... but it's because in America everyone is always looking for that angle.
-
When will the US government realize that the Internet is not an American entitiy and thusly is not subject to their out-dated, Victorial beliefs? http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
I think the best thing about the article is the .prn TLD. :laugh: www.sex.prn www.pr0n.prn www.ilike.prn Too much fun to be had with those names. Jon Sagara There is no spoon.
-
That brings up all kinds of other problems, Eddie. For example, as an American citizen do these laws apply to me if the server isn't on US soil? If the content on the server doesn't break the laws where it is present, then I don't think citizenship is the issue. Also, in my particular case I have dual citizenship so how would that affect this? What about an American citizen not living in the US and the server not being in the US. My point is that the whole reason for alot of the problems we're dealing with regarding the Internet and legalities is that this is a brand new paradigm that the legal system hasn't quite figured out and probably won't for a very long time. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
Tom Archer wrote: American citizen do these laws apply to me if the server isn't on US soil? If you're an american citizen, it doesn't matter where the server or you are located; you must follow the US law and the law of the country you live in. If you live in the US your citizenship doesn't matter you have to follow US law. Tom Archer wrote: Also, in my particular case I have dual citizenship I have dual citizenship too and it just means that there's two sets of laws to I have to abide to.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NET -
But of course reading further: The bill would not apply to security cameras in private places such as department store dressing rooms, nor would it penalize those filming on city streets or other public places where privacy does not exist. So in fact the part of the bill relating to videoing people seems to be pretty well targeted. Of course bolting the web related stuff on the side is a typical government trick: Attach dubious legislation to reasonable in the hopes that people desire to get the latter passed wont be overwhelmed by their dislike of the former. Of course the other question posed is: Why is acceptable to film someone for a "lewd or lascivious purpose" without that person's consent if you happen to be a department store security guard at work? Dan
Personally, I just assume that I'm always being video taped. I figure if the guy/girl at the Courtyard has nothing better to watch and it's not hurting me, then I why should I care? Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
I see your point there. I didn't think of that angle. It's interesting, law making as a whole. Back in college I was in a fraternity and was in charge of the chapter's by-laws (and of course computer accounts, web page, etc.). I gotta admit I hate politics and I think alot of it stemmed from that. It was amazing to me how difficult it was to put a "law" down on paper that didn't: 1) Have too many holes in it. 2) Could be used for something else entirely we never even considered. I suppose we're bad about that here... but it's because in America everyone is always looking for that angle.
Matt Philmon wrote: ...but it's because in America everyone is always looking for that angle Isn't that the truth! I love watching investigative reports on A&E and the Learning Channel where someone has taken some completely benign concept and figured a way to commit a crime with it. It never ceases to amaze me what ideas people can come up. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.
-
Tom Archer wrote: American citizen do these laws apply to me if the server isn't on US soil? If you're an american citizen, it doesn't matter where the server or you are located; you must follow the US law and the law of the country you live in. If you live in the US your citizenship doesn't matter you have to follow US law. Tom Archer wrote: Also, in my particular case I have dual citizenship I have dual citizenship too and it just means that there's two sets of laws to I have to abide to.
Eddie Velasquez: A Squeezed Devil (Don't you just love that anagram craze?)
Checkout GUIDGen.NETThis is not true. So far, almost all judgements in Internet-related cases have been decided with the laws that govern where the server is. Eddie Velasquez wrote: I have dual citizenship too and it just means that there's two sets of laws to I have to abide to. Which doesn't work when the laws conflict. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Please note that the opinions expressed in this correspondence do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.