[quote]ZEB wrote:
Honestly no one should defend this sort of thing. It’s a clear invasion of privacy. And might I add not at all reflective of good republican government.
At what point do some of you think that the Government has enough power? How about when you see a government agent opening your mail at the end of your driveway?
“It’s okay sir if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.”
Isn’t that what they say in the name of “justice?”
It’s BULLCRAP!
This trancsends party lines. Don’t blindly follow any party or politician that takes your privacy rights away one by one.
Every one of you guys should be writing your Congressman over this and over the very intrusive Patriot Act![/quote]
Something to ponder: What if someone is genuinely interested in learning more about the child pornography problem, meaning they are completely against it and want to research it and see how widespread it is on the net, and how easy it would be for their kooky neighbor, or someone, to access it. So this fair-minded person, with genuinely good intentions, searches the words “child sex” in Google.
Then the government gets the master list from Google, researches the IP address of whoever did the search, and then highlights that person’s name as being on some sort of watch list. Or tries to prosecute them for downloading or “possessing” child porn. Or informs their employer, spouse, neighbors, local police, etc., that that person is “one to watch,” since they’ve “dowloaded child porn.”
My point is that this could spin far out of control very, very quickly.
Pete Townsend got in trouble (in the U.K.) for what he claims was exactly that a while back. I think he was ultimately cleared (and who knows what his intentions really were), but it goes to show how scary that kind of thing could get.