RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure

RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 8:32:04 AM)
Yes, Kenin, that's exactly what I'm objecting to. That's the way it is, but that's not the way it should be. You always seem to think that people are fools for trying to change the way things are. If you have shit in the toilet, you flush the toilet. quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin It does not matter how much "government" is in place, the corporations ARE your government. Big business runs your country. They hold the reigns. The government is merely puppets on a string.

NakedOnMyChain -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 8:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin The government is merely puppets on a string. I knew I had a good reason to be frightened of puppets.

Arpig -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 8:57:43 AM)
L&M, you clearly do not understand the point Paine & Jefferson were making. Least does not mean none, it means the least possible. And as for the corporations that scare you so much...they were created (or at least the environment that allowed them to exist was) by governments governing more than they should have, not less...it was an act of government that granted corporations status as a legal "person", so your arguement that they require more governing is in fact an arguement for less governing....since the Gvt fucked up, we now need them to protect us from the very thing they created....in other words we need the Gvt to protect us from the Gvt itself.

Guilty1974 -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 10:11:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig in other words we need the Gvt to protect us from the Gvt itself. That's why the founding fathers build in those checks & balances.

incognitoinmass -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 10:17:24 AM)
New Jersey's internet Anti-Anonymity Bill will reportedly be withdrawn.

Mercnbeth -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 11:06:09 AM)
quote: since the Gvt fucked up, we now need them to protect us from the very thing they created Arpig, In most instances it isn't the government it's the short sighted special interest group extremists on both ends of the political spectrum. If you want to end the trade deficient it's simple - instead of one universal trade tariff that can include country specific "exceptions" depending upon if the country is on "our side" or not this week. Initiate a "reciprocal trade" program; meaning that the US will place on all trading partners the same rules and regulations that the other country places on the US. Instant trade surplus with countries such as Japan. Want to stop international "outsourcing", use the same principle. Any country doing business in the US must pay the minimum wage for the US for the services provided to US customers. Here you may have a problem, because at US minimum wage you are upper middle class in India, in the US you get people who can't make change. I use India as an example because I ended up calling there the last time I had to make a United Airlines flight reservation for a last minute trip to the east coast. BTW - it was the LAST time I'll ever be making a reservation on United Airlines. But I digress... People forget that the job of people running Corporations, public or private, is to make money. They aren't making the laws, they are working within them. They are required to generate profits for the Corporations and their shareholders. It may be debatable whether people have a soul, it's not debatable with Corporations; by definition - they don't. They may buy off a congressperson or two along the way, but if you ever tried to do business in any other country in world, you'd know that policy is not unique to the US. In most places it's an expected cost of doing business. So what IS unique to the US? Easy answer - FREEDOM. We are free to lobby and get minimum wage laws raised to the point that it makes more sense to do the same job in anther country. We are free to lobby for "no student left behind" no-fail policies in the schools which result in a whole generation of students left behind in their ability to add/subtract or complete a properly written or spoken sentence. We are free to lobby for government support of the poor to provide them with a below poverty line stipend. But is these people are motivated to get a job and try to improve their situation we take away the remedial health care they were eligible for when they were on welfare. The problem is the solution is simplistically complicated. Who wants to be the first special interest group to blink? The AMA to enable some sort of Federal health program? The CPA's and/or American Bare Association to put in place a national flat tax? The Board of Realtors and/or the American Bankers Association eliminating the Real Estate tax write off? The National Education Association to require a national standard test for obtaining a high school diploma? Is there any person, let alone political party, who would take on any of those battles head on?

Lordandmaster -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 8:34:47 PM)
"The government that governs least governs best" is not the same thing as "The government that governs the least possible while still making sure corporations don't fuck us in the ass governs best." Paine and Jefferson did not imagine the kind of corporations we are talking about--and I'm not even convinced that Jefferson would have opposed them. (I'm not a big fan of Jefferson's politics. When he didn't have this or that private interest to look out for, he sometimes wrote some stirring things, but usually he was hamstrung by his personal entanglements and confused Jefferson the aristocratic fuck-up with Jefferson the representative of the people.) Look, I think you and I are pretty much on the same side of the political spectrum, but I don't believe it's wise to seek our heroes in the past. In fact, I'll go stronger: I think it's a horribly, horribly self-defeating approach. Aside from the fact that everyone has their peculiar understanding of what they stood for--meaning figures like Jefferson are borrowed to represent almost anything today--the heroes of the past did not face the same problems that we're facing now. If we're going to save this planet from sure destruction, selected aphorisms of Thomas Paine are not about to lead the way--unless, that is, you can show me what Paine said about the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt (and why corporations don't give a fuck about it). Lam quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig L&M, you clearly do not understand the point Paine & Jefferson were making. Least does not mean none, it means the least possible.

Chaingang -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 9:59:06 PM)
"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

Chaingang -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 11:06:29 PM)
"I consider the class of artificers [i.e., manufacturers] as the panders of vice and the instruments by which the liberties of a country are generally overturned." - Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785. ME 5:94, Papers 8:426

FangsNfeet -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 11:23:45 PM)
quote: Would you post differently if CM was required to follow this proposed legislation? It wouldn't change anything that I would post. As for passing the bill itself, I don't see how it could really work and be enforced. Is the government trying to "take over" the internet? Just to really know who is who on the net, it would be easier to pass a bill for fedral and local law enforcement to look at NSA files on people who use the net. The NSA already knows everything about all of us.

amayos -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 11:37:11 PM)
I personally would not post any differently—but I don't feel this information should be made public, regardless. One of the key strengths of web-based interaction is the ability to share ideas and express oneself with relative anonymity. There are factions in our lovely country which see this as a moral detriment, corrosive to religious conservative values, ultimately.

ownedgirlie -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 11:47:15 PM)
If i understand correctly, the host will maintain such information; such information will not be made public to all contributors. Correct? i doubt said bill will go into effect. It is not just folks on "the dark side" who want anonymity. There is a plethora of anonymous groups which have online discussion boards - AA & NA to start. i laughed at the Mercnbeth post of all the laws, however. Isn't that the truth? Next thing you know, there will be a law to cover yourself in bubblewrap for safety at all times.... Hmmm...we could get ideas....

FangsNfeet -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 11:56:56 PM)
As mentioned and hinted before, such a bill would only hurt the innocent far more than punishing the evil. Having our full names and addresses posted will only lead to all of us getting hit with more SPAM, junk mail, sell calls, and other forms of BULL SHIT. Other than that, what changes in the FCC occur at the passing of such a bill? Could no one from anywhere use an anonomys name? Radio would sure begin to suck even worse. So we have a few bad apples in the basket. I would much rather have that than have our society turn completly socialist.

amayos -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/9/2006 11:58:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet As mentioned and hinted before, such a bill would only hurt the innocent far more than punishing the evil. Having our full names and addresses posted will only lead to all of us getting hit with more SPAM, junk mail, sell calls, and other forms of BULL SHIT. Other than that, what changes in the FCC occur at the passing of such a bill? Could no one from anywhere use an anonomys name? Radio would sure begin to suck even worse. So we have a few bad apples in the basket. I would much rather have that than have our society turn completly socialist. * Completely agrees.

Chaingang -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/10/2006 12:10:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet I would much rather have that than have our society turn completly socialist. Can you explain the nexus between lack of privacy and socialism to me? You do also realize that most western countries are significantly socialistic already - yes? So, the Socialism bogeyman is here with us already if that's your big fear.

Guilty1974 -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/10/2006 12:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang You do also realize that most western countries are significantly socialistic already - yes? So, the Socialism bogeyman is here with us already if that's your big fear. My country has been governed by governments markedly more left wing than in the US, yet I don't think I have any less privacy currently, probably more. We've lost some privacy though, recently, by coincidence under the most right wing government we've had at least since I was born. So no, I don't particularly fear the social-democratic bogeyman.

imtempting -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/10/2006 12:47:24 AM)
Wonders what the point of IP addies are...

Chaingang -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/10/2006 1:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Guilty1974 I don't think I have any less privacy currently, probably more. It's more - far more. Americans on the whole are quite clueless on most privacy issues. Here Equifax, Experian and TransUnion control the information and the individual controls nothing. Identity theft is a byproduct of the ease with which information is disseminated. What would I have to do in the Netherlands if I wished to run a credit report on you? See: "Database Nation: The Death of Privacy in the 21st Century" by Simson Garfinkel "The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age" by Daniel J. Solove

Arpig -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/10/2006 8:32:06 AM)
quote: Wonders what the point of IP addies are... so that the internet works....that's how your computer finds the collarme servers so you can read & post. [:)] quote: Look, I think you and I are pretty much on the same side of the political spectrum L&M I suspect you are right about us being pretty much on the same page politically, it would really just be a matter of shades & degrees. To me, the ideal function of government would to be to protect me from others, not from myself. To use the seat belt laws as an example....manufacturers should be required to install them, but you and I should not be required to use them. Personally I always buckle up in a car, simply because it has been proven to my satisfaction that it increases my chances of survival in a crash. Likewise I will insist that everybody in a vehicle I am driving do so as well, for the same reason....sort of "my way or no highway"[;)]. If law enforcement really wants to know who you are, it is easy. I worked for an ISP, so I know the following to be true (in Canada, at least). Your ISP can easily determine exactly which account logged in and was assigned a specific IP address at a given time. When presented with a proper court order, the ISP will divulge that information, it is in the ISP's service agreement somewhere that this is the case (admittedly written in lawyerese and probably buried somewhere in the 32-odd pages that nobody actually reads.....). Given that your ISP has name, address (or at least banking/credit card info) on you (or whoever is paying for your access), the police can quite easily get that information, they simply have to demonstrate to a judge that they have a legitimate need for it. The aim of this law seems to me to be to make it easier and cheaper to get this info, without the need to proove the liklihood of there having been a crime committed. Personally, I think the present procedure works well enough as far as the needs of police business go.

champagnewishes -> RE: A Law Requiring Name Disclosure (3/10/2006 2:15:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin My name and address is posted on My website. I have linked to the website in this forum several times. I have no problem with it. I have nothing to hide (and if you want to swing by for a beer..... [:)]) Same here...although my address is posted as a PO Box....i don't like sharing my beer. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02