It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


ANYTHING literally ANYTHING can be used towards abuse. Hell, we can take a pencil and shove it in someone eye socket. Any system can be abused, any object can be abused, any person can be abused.

But guess what, it isn't the big bad government, it is the INDIVIDUAL causing the abuse.




posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


It appears to me that two members here are resorting to the same insults and trolling.
Best left alone since their arguments are of such low substance that these petty and personal attacks are achieving their aims of deflection from a civilised discussion.

Facts and explanation are presented to them and selectively disregarded to their aims.

Retarded babies,whiners,idiots,kids type insults are starting to get very old very quickly.Mods will be intervening if this continues.

Nice behaviour from new members I must say.

Like I said..Poor case when an argument stands on insults.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Alright, I got some of what you are pointing out. You do have the right to complain, but I also have the right to point out where your complaint is flawed.

And everything is subject to abuse. The fact that you are alive is subject to abuse by others, if you let them and also (get ready.. this is a big revelation that slapped me straight up side the head and really helped to wake me up) by YOURSELF.

You will ALWAYS have the choices to your life in your hand. You CAN NOT control the choices of others which is basically trying to control your circumstances... YOU CAN ONLY CONTROL YOU AND YOUR CHOICES.

Example: Someone comes and holds a gun to my head and tells me to hand over my purse and all the contents there in. This is a violation of my personal rights, but that gun man doesn't care. I have a choice to make. Is living the rest of my life more important or is trying to prove that he is violating what I deem our my personal rights more important.


I could go with the latter and risk losing my life or I could opt for the first choice, hopefully live albeit w/ less money, possible identity theft, pictures of my babies being in the wrong hands, and without my favorite purse. But I still have my life and much to be thankful for.

Regardless of personal rights being violated, I have a choice still. Regardless of the consequences implemented, I have a choice still. It is weighing out the outcomes to these choices that can shed light on what is important and what is not.






[edit on 1-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AGENT_T
 


The most intellectual thing you could come up with was "two members here are trolling?' Go figure!
Keep on living in your ignorance then and let other posters decide if they want to discuss or not.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


SO 'retarded baby' is intelligent?

Pathetic guys.. why bother?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


so bascially you're saying that the potential for abuse with this type of system, which is what this whole thread is about, is unimportant?

that's fine if that's your opinion and really then makes no sense why you're even posting in this thread, but a number of us believe differently and all the name calling isn't really putting your opinion in a good light.
this really isn't about choice, we're talking about potential for abuse and if it does get abused you wont have a choice if you use the internet, and the internet is steadily becoming a massive part of every part of our daily lives. if that time comes the only choice we'll have is to live in an oppressive dictatorship with no personal freedoms or live in the woods with no contact with society. a choice which is hardly easy and in even the best circumstances is deadly(sickness,broken limbs etc).

so basically while i respect your opinion and your right to it, i respectfully disagree. and untill you give some evidence against the potential for abuse and it being disturbing i'm going to have to stop replying to you as this is getting massively off topic.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_TSO 'retarded baby' is intelligent?

Pathetic guys.. why bother?


Yes.. this may be one of the few times where I used that term to form an intelligent reply instead of out of anger. I was trying to show you a point. There are rules and rules aren't always bad.. in fact, they can be there to offer protection.

If I were asked to go for a state of complete anarchy where there were no rules or regulations and it was completely up to me to decide what is right and what is wrong OR a a globalist type one world government where basic necessities were rationed out and I had absolute no say so in my life, I no doubt would choose the first.

But I am not living in that yet and only see that coming about when ppl start throwing fits about trivial things rather than understanding the bigger picture and the IMPORTANT things that are going on.

To me, a website that offers content I want to view but requires my information is not a big deal compared to the fact that they have taken away my rights to carry guns w/out stipulation or that the candidates running for president get to pick their running mate which blatantly goes against the process laid out in the constitution or the fact that they want to impose income taxes which contributes to several things I don't support (welfare, war ANYWHERE overseas, supporting a gov't that has become much too big) or that I have to go through a judge in order to keep my kids pledging to a piece of material that has nothing to do with what the original intent of this country was founded upon (in the process of this one, mind you) or EVEN THAT ppl have such a misconstrued view of freedoms .. thinking that freedom doesn't come with responsibility.


I may or may not agree with giving out my personal information on the web, but I guarantee that if I don't agree, I won't enter it. That is what the founding fathers gave us.. freedom that comes with personal responsibility. This website asking for your information to view their contents is not IMPOSING anything on you! To argue their set up, and this goes ESPECIALLY to those who are saying that they don't care about the content but are still bitching, is to IMPOSE yourself upon them. That is JUST AS WRONG as having other ppl impose their beliefs and views into your life.

There is a blatant disregard and/or lack of understanding about what those in this country have been given and it is evident in this thread.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
There is a blatant disregard and/or lack of understanding about what those in this country have been given and it is evident in this thread.


Or perhaps we do understand what we have been given, and you just don't understand what is being taken away... ?




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by justamomma
There is a blatant disregard and/or lack of understanding about what those in this country have been given and it is evident in this thread.


Or perhaps we do understand what we have been given, and you just don't understand what is being taken away... ?



*sighs* Glass half empty these days, huh? Better half empty than completely gone.

I assure you that I am well aware of what is being lost, but most of it is being given away while you are too busy looking in the wrong direction.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Here's a more practical example for you. Let's say instead of a movie for adults, you had to enter your actual information in, to watch a movie on youtube, like Zeitgeist, or Loose Change, etc.

Right now, that's perfectly legal. Would you still think it's a good idea to make all youtube members register with actual, government checked identification?

Let's say all of a sudden, 5-6 years from now, it's declared illegal to have a dissenting view of the government, or some new law, or whatever - and all copies of Zeitgeist, Loose Change and etc. are taken offline. Right now, you have your actual identity tied to something, that could potentially harm you in one of many different ways, from character assassination to actual assassination.

Perhaps you consider that an extreme case. Those persecuted by the Nazis probably thought it was extreme as well, and rightly so.

Now, let's extrapolate, as I have been suggesting. You claim to support this technique, and your best defense is "well then, don't put any information in, and ignore it!" That's fine and all, however that sounds like the same exact excuse that will be used for RFID.

"Oh, you don't want a chip, well then don't shop at the stores that require it!"

And then after a few years, 90% of stores require it, and while it's perfectly legal to not subject yourself to these "voluntary" invasions of privacy, it sets up certain processes to make them extremely inconvenient for anyone that doesn't want to play along.

Yes, that's correct. Your submission to this technique is only the prelude to accepting the chip implant. You may call that paranoia, but I call it evolution of technology, dangerously mixed with the apathy and technical ignorance that you have shown thus far.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


I have never said that things aren't getting out of hand in areas. But having to enter my information to access a site doensn't seem like a worthy enough battle to me considering that a) not my site b) I don't have a gun to my head forcing me to log into the site c) NOT MY SITE.. who am I to tell them how they can or can't run their site and what methods they can or can't use in order to protect their content? That would be defeating the purpose of freedom used responsibly.


I don't LOOK for trouble. I take things as they cross my path and weigh out how they affect me and my family before making a decision whether or not it is worth fighting.

I don't see the government in such a personal view as you do. I don't believe they are out to get me personally. That does not mean that they don't have an agenda and that the agenda isn't imposing on my personal rights. But I make sure it IS actually imposing on a legite personal right to my pursuit in happiness before I make a big to do about it.

I also try to be smart in how I go about things. I don't just complain.. I am a person of action, but I take the right action in the right way.

How they verify information for their site is not an imposition on my life because I simply don't HAVE to log in. When someone is standing next to me with a gun telling me to log in, then it will become an imposition. We are not required to have computers to live a happy life, so if you choose to have one, you have to play by the rules of the individual sites.



[edit on 2-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientistYes, that's correct. Your submission to this technique is only the prelude to accepting the chip implant.



Explain to me how I have submitted to this 'technique' please.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
so what do adults from other countries do for the restricted site or the USA the only country in the world?



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ST SIR 86
 


well, for this example unless you have a valid US-government issued ID, you cannot enter the site.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


So basically, you want your freedom as you define freedom and you want to impose that definition on everyone else despite what they consider freedom to be because you think you are right and they are wrong for choosing to do things the way they want to do things.

Hypocrite.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 





Yes, that's correct. Your submission to this technique is only the prelude to accepting the chip implant. You may call that paranoia, but I call it evolution of technology, dangerously mixed with the apathy and technical ignorance that you have shown thus far.


That is the most ignorant paranoid delusional thing I have read in awhile. Let's see a show of hands for people who would actually allow the government to go so far as to FORCE chip implants. Not a single damned person, so get off your delusional high horse. We see protests and riots over less trivial things than forced implantations. FFS ...



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
perhaps this can serve to clear up some confusion:

www.thefreedictionary.com...


To infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information.


I just don't get it... if this is such a non-issue, why get so worked up over it? It seems to me, this thread could have been about anything; you are just looking for an argument.

If you wish to take this to the debate forum for a more structured debate, let me know. I will eat you alive.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


The problem with this thread is that you want to impose your idea of freedom onto a site that doesn't belong to you. That, at least, is where my arguement is. They are not imposing anything onto you.. not a DAMN thing. So, yes, your arguement IS hypocritical.

You still have not answered my question that I posed a couple of posts back. I would appreciate you informing me how I have submitted to "them" since you made the statement that I had.


*crickets*



[edit on 2-9-2008 by justamomma]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by scientist
 


The problem with this thread is that you want to impose your idea of freedom onto a site that doesn't belong to you. That, at least, is where my arguement is. They are not imposing anything onto you.. not a DAMN thing. So, yes, your arguement IS hypocritical.


let's take this back to my original post, which you may have neglected to read; which would account for a majority of your statements and assumptions:



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


There you go, that's my argument, along with the fact that the politicians in charge of technology in this country are not qualified. Feel free to debate either of those topics with me, since those are what this thread is about, no matter how much you try to derail it.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


So, you won't answer my question as to the statement that YOU made? How am I submitting? You are the one who threw that out there. Not me.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join