Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday February 01 2016, @05:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the can't-they-find-a-new-excuse-to-steal-my-rights dept.

You have too many rights, so it's time for a little rebalancing:

Internet anonymity should be banned and everyone required to carry the equivalent of a license plate when driving around online. That's according to Erik Barnett, the US Department of Homeland Security's attaché to the European Union.

Writing in French policy magazine FIC Observatoire, Barnett somewhat predictably relies on the existence of child abuse images to explain why everyone in the world should be easily monitored. He tells a story about how a Romanian man offered to share sexually explicit images of his daughter with an American man over email. The unnamed email provider uncovered this exchange and forwarded the IP address of the Romanian to the European authorities and a few days later the man was arrested. Job well done.

Before we have an opportunity to celebrate, however, Barnett jumps straight to terrorism. "How much of the potential jihadists' data should intelligence agencies or law enforcement be able to examine to protect citizenry from terrorist attack?", he poses. The answer, of course, is everything. Then the pitch: "As the use of technology by human beings grows and we look at ethical and philosophical questions surrounding ownership of data and privacy interests, we must start to ask how much of the user's data is fair game for law enforcement to protect children from sexual abuse?"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 01 2016, @09:40PM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Monday February 01 2016, @09:40PM (#297920) Journal

    See this is why I just use "asshole:" it's unisex, and actually rather vile, plus it lends itself to an intensifier ("full of shit").

    I'm not sure I agree that an asshole (in the sense of the body-part) deserves to be used as swear-word/insult as well, a butt can be quite sensitive as well, I've been told. (I'm straight, so I never got mine penetrated nor do I intend to. I'm just trying to apply my previous logic here as well. I'd concede that "dirty asshole" would be a swear-word, or the "full of shit"-part.

    Gendered insults are dumb. I have problems with people because of what's between their ears, not their thighs.

    I try not to have problems with people at all. I'd rather them having problems with me :-) But I think I do see your point.

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2