Scratch

16Skittles wrote:

maxskywalker wrote:

AvatarAang4 wrote:

I forgot what the fourth admendment is, but i have book on the U.S. documents, i am still looking for the one that gives the right for the people to overthrow the gov't if it is oppressive like it is now.

Who cares where the document saying that is?  It's gonna happen, document or no, if this goes on.

Lol, to overthrow the government you must still follow its rules? Anyway, while the citizens have a better chance of winning a cyberwar, but practically no chance in a true war against the vehicles and tactic of our trained armed forces.

True, but I have a feeling that Anonymous would jump at that chance.  Just imagine how much damage they could do with the intention to fully shut down a government.

stevetheipad wrote:

I haven't taken a side yet, but I don't understand what private information/communication we are afraid of the government seeing? If your not doing anything illegal or immoral, you don't have anything to worry about.

I'd love to hear a response to this.

Do you want a police officer to follow you and see everything you do from now until eternity?

stevetheipad wrote:

I haven't taken a side yet, but I don't understand what private information/communication we are afraid of the government seeing? If your not doing anything illegal or immoral, you don't have anything to worry about.

I'd love to hear a response to this.

Hey, Steve, can I have a look at all your emails and text messages please? Oh, and while you're at it, I'd love to see your browsing history too.

If the answer's "no" (which unless your common sense is absolutely non-existent it will be), then according to your logic, you're doing something illegal or immoral. ;P

So, yeah. It's common sense to say no when someone asks to see stuff that should remain private, it doesn't matter if you've got anything to hide or not.

If you're being sarcastic then yeah I agree, I don't know why I posted that, lol. I guess it sounded better in my head. :d

Last edited by RedRocker227 (2012-06-13 17:55:43)

Oh okay. 

can't you just use a proxy...

jslomba wrote:

can't you just use a proxy...

That'd be pretty inconvenient.

GameHutSoftware wrote:

nama wrote:

GameHutSoftware wrote:

SOPA was anti-piracy. This is anti-privacy.

agscratcher wrote:

If you take piracy, swap the i and r, then add a v after the two, it becomes privacy.

They're completely different things, unless you're hiding bootlegged stuff.

It was meant to be a joke, because people were saying CISPA was the new SOPA.

bunp

Government! Y U NO LEARN!

1. Government passes bill
2. Big corporations are glad.
3. People go protesting.
4. Boycott of supporting corporations
5. People put traps on their computer to break government computers.
6. Hackers go nuts.
7. Corporations recieve stimulus packages from taxpayers for loss of buisness.
8. A person in congress gets a lightbulb above they're head.
9. Bill is removed.
10. Millions/Billions of dollars are lost and added to the 15+ trillion dollar debt.
11. Bill starts over with a new name. Return to step 1.

pjhk4401 wrote:

I strongly disagree with CISPA, but people need to WAKE UP!!!  Ever hear of NDAA?  That act?  It allowed the police and military to ARREST WITH NO REASON and ASSASSINATE INNOCENT CIVILIANS!  How do bills like this get pass Congress?  Because they are worded so vague that it sounds like it would protect us.  Does ANYONE pay attention to the news?  I bet you guys also don't know about Operation Fast and Furious.  And the United Nations (a group of useless people that do nothing and that's where our tax dollars are going) were trying to BAN GUNS IN THE U.S!!!   Some people don't even notice how messed up America is until they mess with their computers.

...

FOR THE LOVE OF KALASHNIKOV, NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!
Gun control is when the government tries to stop mentally ill people or convicted felons from accessing weapons. Not banishing them from the country.

I do know about Operation Fast and Furious, and I believe that it is not good policy, although it started in the Bush administration. Also, did you know that before 9/11 the CIA had intelligence that an attack by Al Qaeda on the United States was imminent, and President Bush did nothing about them?

As my last thing comment here, I will cite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitutiin.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now that a standing army is in effect, and now that warfare has changed from simple guns to billion-dollar killing machines, a militia is no longer necessary to the survival of the nation. Also, the constitution specifically states that it must be a WELL REGULATED militia. Clearly the NRA source you have been listening to is picking and choosing which parts of the law they follow. Do I believe that people need to have guns? No. Do I believe we need to take them away from everyone? No. But there is no reason why a convicted felon should be able to go buy an assault rifle. If you want to buy a gun for a legitimate reason, then you should have no problem submitting to an FBI background check.

Edit: please, give me your source that says that the NDAA gives permission to assassinate civilians? Or to arrest for no reason?

Last edited by 16Skittles (2012-06-22 00:03:53)

pjhk4401 wrote:

Ever hear of NDAA?  That act?

Oh god, I remember that.