It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Using Government databases to verify age on regular websites *warning*

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:04 AM

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by scientist

Right, the trailer you embeded came from another website, one that doesn't use that same feature. Whats your point?

@Death & @crimvelvet:

Your right, it shouldn't have to be up to the government, but on the other side of the coin, parents these days DON'T do what they are supposed too. Hell, my grandfather used to have me look up porn for him when I was a kid because he didn't know how to even turn the computer on. So obviously relying on parents/adults to do a proper job is not good enough.

This line of thinking could even be applied to a multitude of things that the government does that technically we as adults should be able to handle ourselves as adults. The fact of the matter is that even as an adult, we still don't do the the things we should be doing. This is why we have all sorts of checks and balances put in place.

This really doesn't hurt your privacy at all anyways. The ISPs already have logs of your history, your computer maintains logs, and your already in a government database. Where's the privacy being infringed upon by having your age validated against a database for an adult themed website that is already logged internally and remotely?

Either way you look at it, who really cares anyways? Unless your doing something illegal, then it doesn't really affect you. Unless your a minor whining about not being allowed to view content not suited for your age bracket.

This entire statement is sick and scary. It should not be up to the gov but parents are not doing it, your grandpa was a degenerate, so the the gov might as well?????? Seriously??? Think about the last thing you said. It is the most tired and rediculous argument that I have ever heard and I hear it allll the time.

"Who cares as long as you are not doing anything illegal."

What is legal? What is not? What is legal tomorrow and no longer legal tomorrow. What about the fact that it is an unsecured system. This just helps to link your ID to illegal activity. Now you are doing something illegal and you do not even know it. What about eployers, should your kids get denied jobs in the future because the potential boss can then see what trailers your kids watched online? The further implications are endless. If pot is illegal for being a gateway drug, this is the alternative. It is one more foot in the door and for every person that thinks that it is ok, they know they can push the door a little farther open.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:48 AM

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Ever hear of a lock on the door? Why should parents rely on the government to babysit their kids? This type of reliance is exactly what they wish to foster.

Lock-up that TV and computer and make you kids go out and play, get some exercise or read a book. MONITOR what they are doing. Don't rely on those electronic babysitters.

Too right crimvelvet i applaud you there. Too much governmental nannying cant be good. Soon they will be owning the children and telling parents well if you hadnt relied on us, they wouldnt be looking up to us sort of thing.

I agree with most posters like scientist and others following that line of belief.

I also believe the ones trying to prove you wrong have not put their details in. If they have im sure they get a lot of marketing calls in real life.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by meadowfairy]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:33 AM

Originally posted by IamGen
i had someone do a little digging around in all this. and from i could see, it mostly looks like it is a smart program. it can recognize things like a real name, zip, DOB. but from i can see it does not match you up with who you really are. what i mean is, if i log on to that trailer as joe bob it does not come back to tell me that i am not joe bob. but it does look like something that is evolving into something real. for sure it is something to keep an eye out for.

just a quick follow up to your comment - sometime between originally posting this thread, and Tuesday, Sept 2nd - the actual database verification appears to have been disabled.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by scientist]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:37 AM

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by scientist

No, this is very different than your example. Your defining a form of freedom by YOUR own terms and coming off as if everyone should accept only that definition. Which is hypocritical

my argument:
I should not have to put my government-verified personal information into a non-government site, to watch a movie trailer.

your argument:
Yes, you should have to provide all your personal details.

It seems that my argument is for freedom, as nothing is being imposed. Your argument is directly imposing on my view of privacy.

Yes, it's my view of freedom - I'm not forcing it on anyone, I am asking to be left alone. You on the other hand are doing the opposite, you are asking me to give up my view of freedom, and to give up my concerns of privacy. Again, I was asking you to change nothing.

You want to cry like a little girl

This concludes our conversation, it's been "fun."

I will continue to discuss this thread with the mature members of ATS. Thanks for all the other feedback so far everyone, I am glad that the few people in this thread arguing against privacy, although vocal and belligerent, are clearly the minority. That gives me some hope.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by scientist]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:11 AM

Originally posted by meadowfairyI also believe the ones trying to prove you wrong have not put their details in. If they have im sure they get a lot of marketing calls in real life.

Too right. I just don't see how exchanging another person's freedom and right to run their site the way they see fit is going to do any good in securing my freedom. I have yet to be convinced otherwise.

When all those who are opposing this revoke their liscense and all public uses of their personal information, then perhaps your arguements will have some meat on their bones.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by sirnex

Put a GP chip in your palm while you're at it so the government can keep you safe too. Seriously, think; cause you're obviously not. Once again, the government is invading our privacy and keeping tabs on us; but it's OK because they're keeping your kiddies safe from all those bad words and images! That's your freakin' job, not the governments . . .

[edit on 9/4/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:31 AM

Originally posted by justamomma
Exactly!! Not your country, not your concern! Couldn't have said it better myself. I will not argue that there are things that are being taken part of by this gov't that should concern the world, but this is NOT one of them as it involves a privately owned website that the citizens here can or cannot log into.
i refer you to the reply i made to you previous to the one you replied to, the trend is what interests me and also i am interested because the security measures implemented in the US are usually applied in the EU at the earliest convenience.

Ireland has a great history of minding its own business and defending itself only when others try to impose themselves onto the folks there. I hope to one day make it that way to visit the homeland of my ancestors.
i also hope you get to ireland some day but frankly, don't preach to me about my countries history. if you think we "mind our own business", you haven't got a clue. we certainly believe in neutrality but don't confuse that with insularism. because our freedom has been trampled pretty effectively, in living memory, we still remember what it requires to gain and how easy it is to lose. your granmother obviously didn't explain to you how easily "security measures" can become tools of oppression. why the heck do you think your ancestors had to leave?

But being aware of other ppl's business that aren't imposing on you is nosey.. not something to be proud of.
do you not understand what a worrying trend is? do you not get the concept of an extrapolation?

Because paranoia has led to many losses of freedom for people throughout history, or had you not noticed this fact?
look, go back, read what my definition of freedom involves and think about it, my paranoia can not possible cost anybody anything except me.

Here's one of the MANY Irish proverbs my grandmother taught to me: A lock is better than suspicion.
the proverb you used means if you see a problem that you can fix, fix it instead of waiting until the worst has happened. as in, if a door has no lock, put a lock on it straight away because that's better than waiting until your robbed and suspecting everybody to be the thief. others that can be used in its stead would be there's no point locking the door after the horse has bolted or a stitch in time save nine.
a proverb is only any use if you have the wisdom to understand it.

your proverb explains the point in being worried about this issue now rather than when the PTB have rounded us up and herded us behind the wire for being on ATS.

And I respect your right to maintain your ignorance.
please explain to me exactly where my ignorance lies. ignorance is not knowing something. i know i'm paranoid, i know this may or may not lead to a worst case scinario, i know that at the moment there is nothing i can do about this, i know this particular incident in itself doesn't matter a damn.

how many times does it have to be said before it sinks in, i am worried about the possible consequences to the wide spread future implementation of this or simular technologies.

seeing that this site is meant to discuss and educate, I feel that I am being invited to inject my perspective into the thread
your comments on the subject are fine and well, i cherish reading opinions that are opposite mine. i just wonder why you seem to spend most of your time telling people, in the most condisending manner, that they are paranoid or ignorant. your attacking the poster rather than the argument the poster makes. there's a name for that, distraction. a stronger word is tempting but i'm reigning in my paranoia

and one more thing, regarding anne frank, if her family, and the family of her neighbour and everybody else in her country and everybody else in the bloody world hadn't said "that's in germany, that's not my business" ten years earlier when hitler was coming to power, maybe she never would have ended up in that attic (and i wouldn't have a little scar on my forehead, if you ever visit her house, be sure to stoop on those stairs!!!).

[edit on 4-9-2008 by pieman]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:36 AM

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by sirnex

Put a GP chip in your palm while you're at it so the government can keep you safe too. Seriously, think; cause you're obviously not. Once again, the government is invading our privacy and keeping tabs on us; but it's OK because they're keeping your kiddies safe from all those bad words and images! That's your freakin' job, not the governments . . .

While I agree that it is the job of the parents to keep their kids in check, I don't agree that most on here are REALLY thinking about what they are saying.

The government IS NOT INVADING your privacy through the verification process on said site. As long as you have a choice not to log in, you are not being invaded. The minute that you preach that the owners of the site shouldn't be allowed whatever set up they choose, YOU ARE INVADING on the rights of another human.

Use logic and don't let their attempts to incite fear and paranoia in you overrule your ability to use common sense. I am all for being aware, but until you are being forced to do something against your will without being given an option to NOT do it, your rights are not being imposed upon.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:46 AM
reply to post by justamomma

i agree with you jam

but it is another example of our society becoming dependent on the government to baby-sit not only our children, but ourselves. I suppose that in a way, some are relinquishing their freedom for security and safety; rather then the government taking it away from them unknowingly.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by JPhish]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by justamomma

will you change the record, you've said that ten times already, its been shot down as irrelivant ten times, why say it again, bring something to the table we haven't already heard or would you rather continue to derail the thread?

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:18 AM
Funny how you are always the one replying to my posts that aren't addressing YOU. I have not derailed the thread and anyone who has a brain can see that. Why are you so threatened by opposing views that you feel the need to chime in so much when I am not replying to you?

Why even post such a topic if the op and YOU are going to be so anti the opposing views.

You have stated your case over and over again as well and the fact that you have comlained OVER AND OVER that I have restated my case shows your hypocrisy... which raises red flags in my mind as to what the point of this whole thread is.

Not ONCE have either you or the OP shown me where this site is violating another persons rights WITH FACTS and not assumptions.

NOt ONCE have you shown me WITH FACTS that I am wrong.

You are appealing to ppl's fear in the name of making them "aware" through methods that are wrong. IT is a witch hunt based on assumptions and since I make it a point to ALWAYS stand up for the personal rights of someone because I do take freedom IN MY COUNTRY seriously, I will keep telling you that YOU ARE WRONG.

Flame away but at least my opinion is not based on fear, paranoia, and assumptions and rather based on logic and fact.

Now tell me USING FACT how jumping a site owners' personal rights is justification for causing alarm amongst the posters here.

Tell me WITH fact how this site is imposing on ppl's personal rights.

Tell me WITH FACTS how this system is any different than what ppl are already voluntarily doing.

Don't use assumptions and paranioa. Tell me how it is okay that a site has been targeted by the OP as being a precursor OR an already in place invasion of our personal rights to privacy.

I doubt that you can... You will only continue to do what you have done. You will twist my words to continue to cause ppl to fear, thus they will throw out logic and become suspicious of their fellow citizens such as the owner of the site and rally around the cause against the "sheeple" rather than standing by them in protecting their rights.

I am not sorry to say that I defend the site owner and his methods since they are not being imposed on ANYONE BUT willing participants.

And since the assumptions are that this will lead to chips being placed in everyone... I stand by the rights of those who CHOOSE to have chips placed in their bodies just as I will stand by the rights of those who choose NOT to have the chips placed in their bodies.

A not so well known FACT is that hitler and stalin used conspiracy theories to incite discord, unrest, and distrust among citizens making them easier to control because if you can divide them, you can conquer them.

This is how I view this thread. Typically logical posters are throwing out what they have normally stood behind (personal rights across the board despite whether they viewed it morally right or wrong) in favor of assumptions and manipulations.

EDITED TO ADD: before you come at me again, bring some FACT that this sites implementing their set up or even other sites implementing this method HAS LED to impositions on our personal rights to choose for ourselves.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:25 AM
I may give up this information often to people face to face... but I dont know about giving it up to a faceless entity on an unsecure site. My reasoning is that since this is readily available to people, anyone can pretend to be anyone and access the site so I dont see the point in using the system.

hypothetical example: if jane doe down the street decides to enter a questionable website, and all questionable websites now require valid identification against a government database, and ms. doe knows this and happens to know my personal information and since she is not required to see anyone face to face... perhaps using my information to access the site is her answer... then one day the government decides that visiting this questionable site is now deemed as act of terror against the powers that be and now have my name and personal information on a list of known terrorists and I find out by trying to travel and get taken into custody and have to prove to someone in a court of law that "I didnt do it" only my court date isn't for another 6 months... meanwhile I lose my job, standing in the community and am forever labeled as a terrorist against my government all because someone thought it was a good idea to use my information to enter a questionable site. All this because someone thought having age verification on the internet for movie trailers with bad language would be a good idea.

IMO.... that's all it takes. All I can say is, I understand how something can seem insignificant and perhaps my example may seem 'out there' but take time to think about where this type of thing may lead. It affects the innocent, not just those with "something to hide". This debate has nothing to do with monitoring your minors.

It frightens me to watch our freedoms disappearing.

edited for spelling

[edit on 4-9-2008 by SleeplessInUS]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by justamomma
Not ONCE have either you or the OP shown me where this site is violating another persons rights WITH FACTS and not assumptions.

and NOT ONCE have you shown that you've even read the first post in this thread, where I clearly state (and have re-stated ad nauseum, as have others) that nobody is claiming this site is invading privacy. Invasion means you don't have the option to decline.

This thread was simply a warning at an alarming trend developing (now I feel like the broken record, lol). That would also help explain the title of the thread, which contains the word "warning."

[edit on 4-9-2008 by scientist]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by scientistI just spotted a very scary trend, that appears to already be implemented on popular sites.

Use of fear #1 (scary trend) AHHHH OMG!! Look at the evil scary things that the site owners are doing on THEIR sites. It is a trend and it is scary!

Normally when you click on "Restricted" (adult) you have to enter a name, and a birthdate. Or maybe something a little more novel, but non-intrusive.

The only difference in this site and the others is that you are entering in your zip code and the assumption that it was being checked against the gov't database... which has actually been proven to be false and yet not once have you admitted that you were wrong, but rather you have twisted it to look like you are the hero who has taken on the big bad guys.

WAy to go hero for standing against the rights of a private site owner!!

When I tried putting in fake info the first time, "asdfg, etc." it rejected me. So I actually put in "John Smith, Jan 20, 1971 - 90210" since that's certainly all valid. Still no go. Then I noticed the fine print:

It is actually checking valid information against your government-issued id (in other words, this commercial site, about a comedy dvd, is actually connecting to a centralized government database, to verify your identify. To watch... a movie trailer...)

WILD ASSUMPTION THERE, don't you think? And even if so, YOU were violating their set up you dumb arse and you admitted it publicly!! whoo hoo! chalk one up for the smart guy!

This probably has nothing to do with the site designers, or the company - and everything to do with a scary trend that's been developing, and I'm afraid is unavoidable.

Saying "this probably" is a clever way to hide the agenda.. unfortunately, I actually have a brain that IS IN USE. Who the flip cares if it IS the site designers idea. Their site, their right. So, this a clever use of words to incite fear and dischord... possibly even inciting anger which HAS BEEN USED in order to gain more control over the population.

Get them riled up, they take to the streets and then there is reason to enforce control... for the sake of the population that is.

There's that "scary trend" only this time it is unavoidable too. Are you kidding me??? It is NOT unavoidable.. that is a lie at worst and at best a GROSS manipulation of the facts. It is completely avoidable.. don't log in, duh!

Pretty soon, every single click will be registered to our actual identities, from stupid kitten videos on youtube, to obscure google searches sone at 3 a.m. with one eye half open.

Assumption Assumption Assumption which will lead to paranoia and anger which leads to ppl NEEDING to be controlled. Clever, huh?
I wouldn't dare say that you are a professional, but then again... you have helped in upping my suspicion of my fellow citizens.

As with all other laws, those in charge of the laws regarding technology in the US, are those with the least amount of knowledge in the area. Need I mention the "internet is a series of tubes" speech? This is the man that authored the Broadband Deployment Act of 2006.

Foot Fist Way trailer (colorful language):

"Series of Tubes" Ted Stevens:

[edit on 30-8-2008 by scientist]

Those in charge of the laws are evil and out to abuse technology. This is specifically geared (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to rile up ppl through fear, paranoia, and anger which is VERY UNWISE when ppl should be using logic and common sense now more than ever.

The best way to gain control is to make ppl feel they have no control... this is a fact and has been used throughout history. They tend to act out of emotion rather than logic, thus they are set up to be hauled off.

Again, I get more pissed at ppl who use these methods rather than educating others in a productive manner that will teach them that they are in control of their life despite what others say. YOU ARE ALWAYS IN CONTROL as long as you think logically and not through fear and paranoia.

definition of aware: having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization or perception

definition of paranoid: Exhibiting or characterized by extreme and irrational fear or distrust of others

This thread served the purpose of the latter, NOT the former.

There, now another false assumption of yours has been laid to rest. I DID read your post and there is the PROOF that I did along with the reasons why I will continue to encourage logic concerning this thread.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by justamomma
you dumb arse

you can sit in the corner with sirnex from here on out, thanks. I'm happy to debate with you, but it's more than obvious you are simply trolling at this point. Try to find something constructive to do with your day today.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:31 AM
There you go again with throwing out false assumptions.

You have said over and over that you want to hold to denying ignorance, yet the only thing that you can comment on is my actual denying of ignorance that has less to do with the issue and more about you personally? Who are YOU caring more about today? yourself or the truth?

All anyone has to do is go back and read through this thread to see that you quite often have either replied to opposing views through use of assumptions made through paranoia and/or blatantly ignored questions made to you and/or denied the reality of anything I or another poster has said.

But here is yet another excuse to avoid the reality of what I am saying. And what I am saying is that the tactics that you have been using in this thread have been used throughout history to help control the population. Yes, that makes me pissed to see it used here and to see that anytime anyone has started to come to their senses, either you or your cohort have jumped in to make sure that a logical discussion amongst other posters doesn't take place. I stand by my statement despite your false assumption and your throwing me in your imagined corner.

I would rather see others keep a level head than to get carried away from reason through use of fear. YES I DO CARE.. I want to see ppl take legit stances based on real (not assumed) violations of their rights and to do it with wisdom so that they aren't harmed and ultimately so that their stances are rendered more effective.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by justamomma

i will quote the first line of the op for you and bold up words that are important to the context of this thread as i understand it.....

I just spotted a very scary trend, that appears to already be implemented on popular sites.

the word trend, meaning a general direction in which something is heading.
the word appears, meaning it looks like something, but looks might be deceptive.

this thread is about the possible direction of web surveilance, from the OP's point of view. he quotes a site that gives him the impression that this is the way web surveilence may be headed.

the OP then describes a site that gave him the impression that this is the way the net is headed, but he didn't claim that the site was proof of anything as far as i can see.

he then elaborates on the trend and wraps up by saying that the people who are legislating for the web seem to know very little about it.

demands of proof or facts and going on and on and on about parinoia and the rights of web-site owners is entirly irrelivant to the opening post, it has little to do with the thread and i believe it to be a de-railment of the thread at best.

have you anything, anything at all to add in regard to the future development of web surveilance by the government?

oh, and by the way, if you want a private chat with someone use the button marked "u2u" not the button marked "reply to", the button marked "reply to" only tells me you want to reply to a specific point the poster made, if i agree with the poster and think you're wrong i'm going to respond.

you gonna call me names again now?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by pieman]

2nd edit to ask if i'm scientist's cohort?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by pieman]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 11:51 AM
Based on the OP's claim, answer these questions then with proof and fact.

scary implies what exactly? Why the assumption that it is scary? Is this not up for debate? If not, then I want to see the proof that this has directly led to the assumptions that have been made. PROOF, not more assumptions.

And since trend was stated as well (he didn't ask if it was a trend, but said IT IS), show me the MANY other websites implementing this form of verification that renders it a trend.

Also, he did say in the OP that it was unavoidable. Prove to me that this IS unavoidable. The claims were made and so the facts and proof should be there, no?

FIRST EDIT: to answer to the 2nd edit, yes.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by justamommaAlso, he did say in the OP that it was unavoidable. Prove to me that this IS unavoidable. The claims were made and so the facts and proof should be there, no?

no, he said he was afraid it was unavoidable, i took him at his word but if he believes it is actually unavoidable he'll have to speak for himself. if i thought it was actually unavoidable i wouldn't bother worrying about it.

scary implies what exactly?
it implies the trend scares him!?!

Why the assumption that it is scary?
it scares him therefor it is scary

Is this not up for debate?
you think scientist should consult others before he decides he is scared by something?

If not, then I want to see the proof that this has directly led to the assumptions that have been made. PROOF, not more assumptions.
you want someone to prove they are scared by something, outline what you would like to be presented with as proof of an emotion and i'm sure the op will do his best to oblige!!

And since trend was stated as well (he didn't ask if it was a trend, but said IT IS), show me the MANY other websites implementing this form of verification that renders it a trend.
actually, the word trend doesn't require evidence in of that sort, it is a direction. if you require proof of the steps in this direction preceeding this step, i have no issue providing it. it will take time though, check back.

EDIT:cool, i've been called lots of things but i've never been called a cohort.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by pieman]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:31 PM
You know, let me just state that I am not trying to argue for arguement sake and for that reason unless I see another poster (meaning, someone different from the two of you) replying with a misunderstanding of what unhypocritical personal rights entail, after I say the following, I am finished.

I find it odd that everytime someone has started to see it from my perspective, one of you (mostly the "pie guy") jumps in and diverts the attention away from that conversation by trying to argue something that can't be argued with facts.

To me, the intent of this thread was not because you care about your fellow posters, but rather that you were upset you couldn't get into the site with false information and so you came here to appeal to ppl's paranoia to rally with you in your anger at not being able to cheat a system.

If your intent was purely because you cared about the loss of freedoms, you wouldn't have used the site to incite fear in others especially by being so dogmatic in your assumptions, but rather you would have used wisdom and INFORMED THEM OF THE TRUTH that the site is not violating rights, the government was not violating the rights of fellow posters through this site, but to just be aware and that although we can't control the actions and choices of others, the power of our personal life and the choices we make are ALWAYS in our hands, not in the hands of others (even if this means personal sacrifices).

But you didn't do this. You wanted ppl to be riled up that this could potentially spread to other sites meaning that YOU would no longer be able to cheat their set ups anymore.

This thread wasn't about making others aware of anything, but to rally people to your personal ought against sites that implement systems to keep cheaters from bypassing THEIR chosen methods of verification.

I am all for not having personal rights being infringed on, but I don't exploit it for my own gain or to rally ppl against the rights of others.

You have proven your character and despite your smooth way with words for those who will pat you on your back, I can't help but see through to the cheat and manipulator that you really are... If you weren't, then you would have understood from the get go what I was saying and not interrupted the conversations of others who were starting to realize their WELL INTENTIONED emotions were being exploited for selfish purposes.

You are a cheater who is angry and nothing more. With that, I am done responding to the OP's posts and his cohort.

I encourage anyone else to be aware that you are in control of your life and to ALWAYS use wisdom in deciphering what truly are your personal rights from your agenda that could imposing on another's personal rights, which is never okay to do under any circumstance, especially when it is based on assumptions.


[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

new topics

<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in