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: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:43 PM
the first thing i want to address to you is the reason that i am worried my accociation with consiracy theories might land me in trouble with the american government.

george w bush in an address to the UN
Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.
link to white house press release

there was also a report about dr. ivins, the alleged anthrax bomber, from the LA times, i saw while on ATS, that listed his postings in a thread as evidence to his mental instability. here's a link to the thread and a link to the LA times piece.

there are other bits and bobs but that isn't my main point so i'll get to web surveilance.

here's a link to a wikipedia write up on the NSA's warrentless surveilance controversy to start with. okay, i know wiki isn't entirely reliable but there's citations at the bottom if you need to fact check it.

so far, we have bush saying that 9/11 conspiracy theories cannot be tolerated, we have ATS linked to a domestic terrorist and we have the NSA spying on our electronic communications.

then the growth of the intrusion is outlined in this report from the wall street journal. here's an excerpt

According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records. The NSA receives this so-called "transactional" data from other agencies or private companies, and its sophisticated software programs analyze the various transactions for suspicious patterns. Then they spit out leads to be explored by counterterrorism programs across the U.S. government, such as the NSA's own Terrorist Surveillance Program, formed to intercept phone calls and emails between the U.S. and overseas without a judge's approval when a link to al Qaeda is suspected.

justamomma, do you require more proof of a trend or are you satisfied that i am just voicing concerns that i personally have?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by pieman]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by pieman]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by pieman

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.

apparently this has now derailed into a debate over semantics.

The tactics used by those without any valid arguments are pretty much the same, regardless of what the topic is. Ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies and straw men arguments. The stuff ignorance is made of.

btw, thanks Pieman, you make a great cohort,

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by pieman

justamomma, do you require more proof of a trend or are you satisfied that i am just voicing concerns that i personally have?

In the spirit of fairness, I will answer this question.. but honestly, unless you can at least try to understand where I am coming from, don't bother asking me anymore questions because I feel obligated to answer.

I am not saying there is not an agenda by someone to see our personal preferences and yes, even to get monitor us. Not at all would I argue that point.

What I do not agree with is that sites don't have a right to allow for this for whatever purpose they so choose when I have the choice to turn off my computer. I do not see it as an infringement on my rights when I am choosing to come online for whatever MY purposes are.

When they start tapping my home through means other than public use of technology (meaning phones, internet, etc all of which are using the systems that don't belong to me in the first place), then yes, I will have to take the stance against my personal rights being infringed upon.

My agenda for coming online does not negate their right to their agendas when I am accessing technology that doesn't belong to me. We pay a fee to use the internet, but it is well documented that this doesn't mean we own the internet as individuals (unless it is your site).

When I come online and access other ppl's sites, I am making the choice to negate my privacy in order to pursue my agenda for whatever reason I am online for.

Again, I am not saying to be unaware, but to be specific in our awareness. Assumptions alone do not equal awareness. Having all the facts, setting aside your view point to take into account all view points, acknowledging DIFFERENT outcomes (not just one), acknowledging all the choices that you have, and basing all the outcomes in logic in order to make wise decisions that are more effective in the long run and don't negate the rights of others.

Hope that makes sense.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by scientist

thanks for that bit of information. and for the record thanks for the *warning*. i took this tidbit as just that. a heads up as to what is out there. and to have it looked at. however, it is still a disturbing thought.

and as for the people who do not seem to have a problem with "big brother" thing. seems to me that it is not an issue with them untill they come under the spot light. then they are up-in-arms. that seems to be when they no longer want "big brother" hanging over their shoulder. it does not work that way.

i know a few people that feel that if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about. and i find it very hard to deal with these people. because they don't seem to really get it. or it could be that maybe i am way out of line because they never do anything to be noticed.

i just prefer to live without being monitored.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by sirnex
who really cares anyways? Unless your doing something illegal, then it doesn't really affect you.

Please stop it right now, if not for yourself, do it for your children.

Hhahaha that is freakin' awesome!

Meeting "if you aren't doing anything wrong you shouldn't care" with "do it for the children".

Totally hilarious, and probably one of the few times that "do it for the children" was used in a valid context.

Sir, I salute you.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 02:27 PM
Ok...I put fake info in and it let me right in WTF?

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by justamomma

i'm glad you did answer, and i can assure you i do see your point of view, i just don't in any way agree with it. i think it's convincing on the surface but it's like thin ice, it breaks up under pressure and lands you in really cold water. if i didn't think it was convincing on the surface i wouldn't bother discussing it with you.

the thing is, your phone calls are being monitored, your e-mails are being screened and your search strings are being logged, this is a fact. the NSA do this already.

at the moment it is more difficult to filter what you are looking at passively through their screening process' but technology like this identification system would make it easier to do so.

it is not an issue with this single website , certainly not on my end, it is an issue with the PTB, they are operating a system that to me, looks to be another step down the road towards total surveilence.

you said this, and i think this is an interesting point of view

When they start tapping my home through means other than public use of technology (meaning phones, internet, etc all of which are using the systems that don't belong to me in the first place), then yes, I will have to take the stance against my personal rights being infringed upon.

to me, this argument is an arguement of moving targets. i mean what if they only tap you on public land, so you're only tapped outside your home? what if they monitor the contents of your toilet after you flush into the public sewers? what if we say air is a public medium so anything you say is okay to tap?

my point is that any restriction on the free exchange of ideas among law abiding citizens is an infringement upon your freedom to think. any time you are monitored with a view to uncovering unlawful behaviour, without requirment for suspicion on the part of the monitor, your right to privacy is infringed upon.

wire taps used to be a big no-no in the states, they bought down a president, what has actually changed to make it okay now, for you, for the other people on this thread that have justified this behaviour, for the intel services and the government? are a few castrated and powerless terrorists 6000 miles away so much more dangerous than the USSR ever was?

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by scientist

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

Then don't use the privately owned website as that is who is forcing you to use their verification system, not the government.

Your argument is directly imposing on my view of privacy.

SNIP Your name, date of birth, and zip are all public information. Your schools have this information, your friends and family have this information, your doctors has this information. If you are a functional member of society, just about every damn person you know has this information. SNIP

I am asking to be left alone.

Then leave the country and find some other society that doesn't require you to give out valid information to be a functional member of that society. I'm sorry like sucks and people require basic information from you SNIP. I am sorry if telling you how it is hurts your feelings SNIP.

Mod Notes: removed unnecessary comments. We don't do that here.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Crakeur]

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:29 PM
Has it ot occured to anyone that the issue here might not lay with privacy in the sense of oh i have to give my information. It lays in the sense of this gives Crackers / Hackers another route into government data.

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:52 PM
the us government are begging to be hacked having a data base linked to a website showing a trailer on proberbly a not very secure server. identity theft anyone

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by sirnex

It's about time you guy's came in an edited my content. Allows me to finally prove a point to scientist!

While the constitution guarantees our right to freedom of speech, when your on someone else's property/site you abide by their rules, like it or not. I can't just say whatever I want here and not expect to have consequences for what I say. I fully understood the T&C's and I am lucky all I got was a SNIP. Honestly, to me it was worth the risk in proving a point. Regardless of what rights and freedoms you may have, it means nothing when it comes to someone else's site.

As much as I may disagree with the rules in what words I can and can not use to describe you fully, as long as I post here, I need to abide by the rules of ATS. If you want to access content on some other site and they require you to verify your age by whatever damn means they wish, you either abide by their rules or just leave the site.

Thanks mods for FINALLY getting around to this, much appreciated!

[edit on 4-9-2008 by sirnex]

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 02:41 AM
Scientist thanks for pointing this warning. In order for people to not be ignorant they need to be informed first. So applaud you there. If this crops up in other areas i will think about your post and thread.
I think the idea must come from China's rules about the internet that was splashed all over the news since the olympics. They are possibly using the same sorts of security ideas on websites now.
justamomma i agree people need to take control of their lives and the best way to avoid things is to not give them the time of day by giving our information to them. Im glad someoone is thinking about solutions rather then the cause.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by meadowfairy]

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:04 AM

Originally posted by sirnex
Then leave the country and find some other society that doesn't require you to give out valid information to be a functional member of that society.


Running away is not a valid option. You have to stay and work to change the things that you don't like about the country.

That is Patriotism, that is the American Way.

I know you fake-churchy Fox News types like to scream "If'n y'all don' like 'Murka, then git out!" but you are totally missing the point.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by Symbiote]

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 06:02 AM
Exactly symbiote. We as humans cannot keep bringing out the milk machine and running away from our problems. We need to make a stance to make changes.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by meadowfairy

What changes need to be made for freedom? Should we start disallowing people to exercise their freedom in verifying ages to keep minors out of adult content or should we allow minors to exercise their freedom to obtain adult content?

This "warning" isn't a warning about the government, it's a warning about a person who owns and operates his own website and chose the age verification system as he/she saw fit for his privately owned website to keep minors out of adult content.

If freedom means you people stopping me from choosing to do similar things, then that isn't freedom imo. That is just tyranny, terroristic, hypocritical, and down right rude of you. No one is forcing you to enter in your public domain information, you have the freedom to not visit that privately owned website.

You people have the word government involved and THIS is what is getting you all bent out of shape. You choose to ignorantly ignore this huge fact just to argue an invalid argument. The government never once has been explicitly involved in this "warning".

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by sirnex

Although I disagree with you slightly in some views, I would have to say that as far as what freedom constitutes, there is a lot of misunderstanding on the part of the civilians in this country. Alas, they will continue to escalate the problem rather than looking to themselves for the answers.

Things aren't looking good and to be quite honest, I have said this before.. I am more angry with my fellow citizens right now than I am the authority figures. wisdom and logic go a long way in keeping the freedoms we so freely enjoy at the moment.

Anger and assumptions will only ensure that they are taken away.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by justamomma

The way I view freedom is, you either have absolute total freedom to do whatever you please, which includes killing others without consequence, or you have freedoms as dictated by the society you live in.

Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I myself would not like people to have total absolute freedom as that would give them every right to kill me if they so chose to without consequence, which is why I choose to live in a society which upholds certain laws and rules that govern the actions of other members of that society. I fully understand that as more people abuse those rules as members of those societies, those rules become more seemingly harsh. Yet I disagree that it is the governments that are becoming the harsh one's, it's the people themselves who think they are above the societies they live in who think they can just damn well do whatever they please regardless of the rules of society. If people would just behave, we wouldn't need such harsh rules. You don't go around killing everyone and not expect someone to say cut the crap and lock you away from the general populace.

posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by sirnex

And for clarification, I believe that I have complete freedom regardless of laws, but I am also wise enough to know when and how to use them. When it imposes on another persons right who is not imposing on me and/or threatening me or my family, I am fine to abide by rules.

However, I will completely concur that so many think that because they can't act in a completely selfish manner according to law, they get careless with their freedom and this only promotes the worse case scenario that they are all fearing.

I also agree, as did ben franklin by the way, that if you can't accept that public property (which I honestly believe he would conceive the www to be... it is logical to think so, as was he) means you must abide by society's rules, then you should go live like or among the savages where there is no law.

I personally choose a free society because I am aware of the difference between public and private and personal rights while maintaining a healthy understanding of civil duty and living in society. The concept of freedom of CHOICE also does not elude me as it does so many of our fellow citizens these days.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by justamomma]

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10   >>

log in