FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited

But even if that's true, what's being done here is taking away the privacy of everyone. I'd rather give pedophiles their privacy than have mine forcibly removed.

As I said, I am not an ACLU type. I think that ACLU types place us in great, maybe mortal danger. I think your position is simply wrong.

Live dangerously, I say! Let me live my private, dangerous life, damnit!

And nothing would be taken from me forcibly. They are welcome to any information they think they require

If they asked for permission, I would give them the information they requested. But if I have no choice as to whether or not I'm under surveillance, I'm going to be disgruntled.

I cant agree that policing the web should be avoided because it might drive paedoes to find other means to exploit children. We should search them out and destroy them wherever they ply their filthy business. In all honesty I would consider loosing my privacy if it meant children would be safer. I might fight the system if it exploited that allowance.

While I agree that we should get rid of all child-porn and abuse, I think the order is important. It would seem better to me to first catch the pedophilies, and then take out what they put on the internet.

If you could catch a paedo by examining his web record , would you? With millions using the web it has to be targeted interference by the law enforcement . Why would they look at me or you for no reason?

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin
The man who sacrifices freedom (including privacy) for security, deserves neither and usually ends up without either freedom or security.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin
The man who sacrifices freedom (including privacy) for security, deserves neither and usually ends up without either freedom or security.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin
The man who sacrifices freedom (including privacy) for security, deserves neither and usually ends up without either freedom or security.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin
The man who sacrifices freedom (including privacy) for security, deserves neither and usually ends up without either freedom or security.

Im not giving up freedom by my allowance, I'm increasing the freedom of children to live without fear of these sick bar-stewards. We all relinquish freedom of a sorts by just living. Can you drive without be monitored for speeding.

"The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights"--Edmund Burke

:shifty:


They are both right of course. Quotes and maxims are a forgiving medium.

That is not what, in fact, Franklin said. What he said was, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security".The terms 'essential" and "temporary" are important. Is not being profiled before boarding a place an essential freedom ? Is precaution against being blown up when you fly temporary security? Don't paraphrase Franklin and omit important qualifiers. Not cricket.

Why should the fact that children are not always told of their existance, stop them from being protected from them?

The FBI also wants to know what books you check out from libraries (Patriot Act).

If you live in the USA and use any kind of electronic draft, check, debit card, etc., banks are required to check these electronic files against a "list." Not much is known about who gets on the list or why. In the banking business this is called "scrubbing a file." Out, out, damned spot!

These are dangerous times, would you not like to know your neighbours obtained a book on DIY explosives? We must be vigilant on securing our freedom but reality must be relevant.

The times have always been dangerous. In the past your neighbours could kill you in your sleep and easily get away with it, or you could just get an incurable lung disease and die.

I will protect my own at any expense to others. If a danger lurks I will seek it out and eliminate it, I have no scruples when mine are threatened. I expect the same from my home security authorities.