Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by jim2, Feb 6, 2010.
Nice.. .. that's how the "police state" works. "But it's for the greater good.. it's for the.. CHILDREN.. do it for the CHILDREN".. Gee, who would say no? only a heartless person would not want to protect children, right? / end sarcasm.
Seriously. While so many other people let their children surf the internet without supervision or proper safe-guards, I allow my 6 old on only under my direct supervision and have set up preventive measures for blocking un-wanted sites from his IP. He has no IM and no email address for one thing. It's really not that hard to protect children. Take away their Instant messengers if they don't follow proper usage, log their chats and watch them.
I actually plan to write an peer to peer IM application for simple IM'ing between my son and his friends; and if they don't want to use it, which is fine, then there is no IM'ing for him until he's older.
The police need not be involved in any proactive measures here.. they're need is only reactive. The proactive responsibility falls on the parents/guardians.
The all seeing eye.The electronic hell Osama spoke of, and Obama is doing. The military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about. For them to carry out their unlawfulness, they have to know what the lawful are doing, so they won't get caught. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Where's the 4th Amendment?
Separate names with a comma.