• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrats working to spy on your online activities

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Seems there some in the Democratic Party that want to know everything you're doing online. They want to watch you and monitor you to ensure your compliance. Of course the Democrats did nothing but spout harsh words over the whole phone recording mess so really we already knew they supported that, now they seem to want to work towards the next logical step and record your internet activities.

Seems the Democrats were more aligned with Bush then most would care to admit. In fact considering the Democrats had Congress since 06 it might not be too much of a stretch to say the Democrats, outside of the harsh language, actually supported Bush in the majority of his activities.

I guess the Traitor in Chief managed to get so much done because the Communist Party of Betrayers were right behind him eh?

Article

US lawmaker injects ISP throttle into Obama rescue package

'Network management' meets child porn

By Cade Metz in San Francisco ? Get more from this author

Posted in Government, 11th February 2009 00:43 GMT

Free research: Application platforms, the state of play

US Senator Dianne Feinstein hopes to update President Barack Obama's $838bn economic stimulus package so that American ISPs can deter child pornography, copyright infringement, and other unlawful activity by way of "reasonable network management."

Clearly, a lobbyist whispering in Feinstein's ear has taken Comcast's now famous euphemism even further into the realm of nonsense.

According to Public Knowledge, Feinstein's network management amendment did not find a home in the stimulus bill that landed on the Senate floor. But lobbyists speaking with the Washington DC-based internet watchdog said that California's senior Senator is now hoping to insert this language via conference committee - a House-Senate pow-wow were bill disputes are resolved.

"This is the most backdoor of all the backdoor ways of doing things," Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky told The Reg. "Conference committees are notorious for being the most opaque of all legislative processes."

Obama's stimulus bill sets aside between $6bn and $9bn for expanding American broadband into rural areas, and Senator Feinstein hopes to (PDF) augment this Broadband Technology Opportunities Program so that it "allows for reasonable network management practices such as deterring unlawful activity, including child pornography and copyright infringement."

On one level, Obama's bill is an effort to boost the American economy. On another, it's an opportunity for lobbyists to make a mockery American government.

According to Public Knowledge, the Motion Picture Association of America is behind Feinstein's language. The MPAA doesn't like copyright infringement. And you can bet the child pornography bit was tossed in for added effect.

But the "network management" bit sounds like ISP speak.

As Art Brodsky and his colleagues pointed out, network management is used to manage networks - not filter content. Content filters are used to filter content. But American ISPs - particularly cable ISPs - will take any excuse they can find to throttle certain traffic.

And if they're using copyright infringement and child porn as excuses, they'll have to start sniffing packets. So, Feinstein's amendment would also destroy net privacy - if there's any out there.

Word from Public Knowledge is that Congressman Henry Waxman will back Feinstein's amendment when it turns up in conference committee. Representing a district near Hollywood, Waxman has long backed the MPAA and the Recording Ass. of America in their efforts to crack down on P2P file sharing. ®
 
The proposal was quickly dropped, with my understanding being that this was due to pressure by other Democrats.

Henry Waxman definitely did not support adding the measure in during the conference committe.

In other words this is mostly paranoid ranting (with the exception of the one Senator who has publicly asserted her proposal was misunderstood) and it remains mostly the Democrats who actually supported net neutrality and sucessfully are getting it added into law with this bill.
 
You really ought to stop reading The Register. It is only telling you what you want to hear. It rarely tells you what is actually happening.
 
the article is specifically about Dianne Feinstein with brief mention of Henry Waxman yet the title of the thread indicates all democrats. can you say inaccurate?
 
If any forum should know better than to link to Register/Inquirer/Fudzilla articles, it should be this one. Then again, it's Specop.
 
Originally posted by: Xavier434
You really ought to stop reading The Register. It is only telling you what you want to hear. It rarely tells you what is actually happening.

Ah, so your way of dismissing power hungry politicians is to question the publisher of the article?! LOL. Brilliant. You'll go far in live Xavier.

Here, is this better? Click
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
If any forum should know better than to link to Register/Inquirer/Fudzilla articles, it should be this one. Then again, it's Specop.

See above. Nothing like letting your idols run wild and supporting it like simply dismissing the publisher. Way to go!
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ah, so your way of dismissing power hungry politicians is to question the publisher of the article?! LOL. Brilliant. You'll go far in live Xavier.

Here, is this better? Click
This is better since it mostly establishes it is ONLY Diane Feinstein who is known to have supported the measure, and it definitely didn't make the final bill. The Register artiticle was outdated and extremely misleading especially with your commentary. It was also outright wrong in its speculation involving Waxman in particular.

The fact of the matter is its still primarily Democrats who actually have supported the net neutrality provision and are sucessfully getting it into law here.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Xavier434
You really ought to stop reading The Register. It is only telling you what you want to hear. It rarely tells you what is actually happening.

Ah, so your way of dismissing power hungry politicians is to question the publisher of the article?! LOL. Brilliant. You'll go far in live Xavier.

Here, is this better? Click

why don't you comment on the title of this thread being false and misleading or the fact that Obama is pro net neutrality?

i guess we should all just be happy you didn't throw a little of your racism in this thread.
 
Originally posted by: Aegeon
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Ah, so your way of dismissing power hungry politicians is to question the publisher of the article?! LOL. Brilliant. You'll go far in live Xavier.

Here, is this better? Click
This is better since it mostly establishes it is ONLY Diane Feinstein who is known to have supported the measure, and it definitely didn't make the final bill. The Register artiticle was outdated and extremely misleading especially with your commentary. It was also outright wrong in its speculation involving Waxman in particular.

The fact of the matter is its still primarily Democrats who actually have supported the net neutrality provision and are sucessfully getting it into law here.

This.

It tells the story in such a way that is far less biased and more complete. Obama's stance on net neutrality is quite clear.

Sources and the way news is written means a lot Specop. If you want to spread the word you believe in then you need to do it in such a way that people will both understand an listen. Otherwise, what's the point?
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: eskimospy
If any forum should know better than to link to Register/Inquirer/Fudzilla articles, it should be this one. Then again, it's Specop.

See above. Nothing like letting your idols run wild and supporting it like simply dismissing the publisher. Way to go!

A discerning reader dismisses sources that are repeatedly shown to be unreliable sources of information. If I post an article that says "MECHANICAL CRAB OVER RESTAURANT EATS WOMAN", and someone dismisses it because it's a Weekly World News article, they are not letting the Woman Eating Mechanical Crabs off easy, they are using their brains.

Thankfully, you linked a second article from a reputable source. Of course as the second article explains, this was most likely a bunch of paranoia and foaming coming from you over something that won't even be part of the bill. Since Obama was elected you have had a series of posts such as this, taking huge leaps of paranoid logic from innocuous/poorly sourced/misunderstood minutiae and tried to blow them up to be something more than they are.
 
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Xavier434
You really ought to stop reading The Register. It is only telling you what you want to hear. It rarely tells you what is actually happening.

Ah, so your way of dismissing power hungry politicians is to question the publisher of the article?! LOL. Brilliant. You'll go far in live Xavier.

Here, is this better? Click

The Register has as much validity as a klansman in the NAACP.

the fact that you don't know this accepted reality speaks highly of your ignorance.
 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: her209
Is Specop007 against this only because it was a Democrat proposing it?


Are you saying he is acting like a liberal?

Christ you're an asshole.


Oh look it's Mr. Anti-America and Anti-God.

Yeah. What's the mother fucking problem again, mr. despot dong sucker?
 
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: her209
Is Specop007 against this only because it was a Democrat proposing it?


Are you saying he is acting like a liberal?

Christ you're an asshole.


Oh look it's Mr. Anti-America and Anti-God.

Yeah. What's the mother fucking problem again, mr. despot dong sucker?

Ladies like you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: her209
Is Specop007 against this only because it was a Democrat proposing it?


Are you saying he is acting like a liberal?

Christ you're an asshole.


Oh look it's Mr. Anti-America and Anti-God.

Yeah. What's the mother fucking problem again, mr. despot dong sucker?

Ladies like you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

"Ladies"? Hehe.. Yeah yeah, we all already know you're a moron AND a bigot, no need to keep rubbing that in our faces. So, do you even know what "liberal" means, or are you just one of those knuckle-dragging apes who use the term to describe anything or anyone that offends you? Much in the same way that children call things "gay". Don't answer that, I already know. Listen closely, because I know how hard it is for socially backwards folk to understand and comprehend. If you act like a cock you're not going to get respectful replies, much less deserve them. Go F yourself.
 
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: her209
Is Specop007 against this only because it was a Democrat proposing it?


Are you saying he is acting like a liberal?

Christ you're an asshole.


Oh look it's Mr. Anti-America and Anti-God.

Yeah. What's the mother fucking problem again, mr. despot dong sucker?

Ladies like you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

"Ladies"? Hehe.. Yeah yeah, we all already know you're a moron AND a bigot, no need to keep rubbing that in our faces. So, do you even know what "liberal" means, or are you just one of those knuckle-dragging apes who use the term to describe anything or anyone that offends you? Much in the same way that children call things "gay". Don't answer that, I already know. Listen closely, because I know how hard it is for socially backwards folk to understand and comprehend. If you act like a cock you're not going to get respectful replies, much less deserve them. Go F yourself.

Wow I think I hit a hot button by calling you a liberal, do you prefer neo-marxist?

 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: her209
Is Specop007 against this only because it was a Democrat proposing it?


Are you saying he is acting like a liberal?

Christ you're an asshole.


Oh look it's Mr. Anti-America and Anti-God.

Yeah. What's the mother fucking problem again, mr. despot dong sucker?

Ladies like you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

"Ladies"? Hehe.. Yeah yeah, we all already know you're a moron AND a bigot, no need to keep rubbing that in our faces. So, do you even know what "liberal" means, or are you just one of those knuckle-dragging apes who use the term to describe anything or anyone that offends you? Much in the same way that children call things "gay". Don't answer that, I already know. Listen closely, because I know how hard it is for socially backwards folk to understand and comprehend. If you act like a cock you're not going to get respectful replies, much less deserve them. Go F yourself.

Wow I think I hit a hot button by calling you a liberal, do you prefer neo-marxist?

I haven't the slightest clue. To be perfectly honest, I just don't give a shit. Try to come up with a cute little label, I don't care. My original beef in THIS particular instance was that you're absolutely clueless as to what "liberal" means. It's not a political label, it's a word that quantifies or describes. You have to have a subject before you utilize it. In one example, I am a "social liberal", because I, unlike you, would like people to be totally free to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Then you took it to another level, going after my global-political views. Yeah, I abhor the idea of lines in the sand, and basing laws or social standards on fairy-tales written by fucked up men. The mere fact that you brought that up out of nowhere shows how pathetic and sub-childish your mind is. SUB-childish because children are curious, not fearful. You're a coward, and it eats at you that there are people out there who don't give a flying fuck about your boarders and faiths.

One day, everything you believe in will be gone. Your country, your gods, your bigotry, and everyone who used to stand behind you as you flung your mental fecal matter. How utterly... Amusing. 😀
 
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: her209
Is Specop007 against this only because it was a Democrat proposing it?


Are you saying he is acting like a liberal?

Christ you're an asshole.


Oh look it's Mr. Anti-America and Anti-God.

Yeah. What's the mother fucking problem again, mr. despot dong sucker?

Ladies like you ought to have your mouth washed out with soap.

"Ladies"? Hehe.. Yeah yeah, we all already know you're a moron AND a bigot, no need to keep rubbing that in our faces. So, do you even know what "liberal" means, or are you just one of those knuckle-dragging apes who use the term to describe anything or anyone that offends you? Much in the same way that children call things "gay". Don't answer that, I already know. Listen closely, because I know how hard it is for socially backwards folk to understand and comprehend. If you act like a cock you're not going to get respectful replies, much less deserve them. Go F yourself.

Wow I think I hit a hot button by calling you a liberal, do you prefer neo-marxist?

I haven't the slightest clue. To be perfectly honest, I just don't give a shit. Try to come up with a cute little label, I don't care. My original beef in THIS particular instance was that you're absolutely clueless as to what "liberal" means. It's not a political label, it's a word that quantifies or describes. You have to have a subject before you utilize it. In one example, I am a "social liberal", because I, unlike you, would like people to be totally free to do whatever they like so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Then you took it to another level, going after my global-political views. Yeah, I abhor the idea of lines in the sand, and basing laws or social standards on fairy-tales written by fucked up men. The mere fact that you brought that up out of nowhere shows how pathetic and sub-childish your mind is. SUB-childish because children are curious, not fearful. You're a coward, and it eats at you that there are people out there who don't give a flying fuck about your boarders and faiths.

One day, everything you believe in will be gone. Your country, your gods, your bigotry, and everyone who used to stand behind you as you flung your mental fecal matter. How utterly... Amusing. 😀
You're wasting your breadth or in this case bandwidth. All he's interested in is trolling.

 
Back
Top