Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
With Thanks to Jilluser for bringing the topic up
Published on December 22, 2004 By Dr Guy In Current Events

Jill did an article on how the children in Washington State have more rights than parents when it comes to privacy.  And it was a hot topic!  But the truth is that is what the ADULTS of Washington wanted!  They voted for the clowns that made the law (and that is the words of a native Washingtonian, not me!), and refused to revise it 3 times now.

Perhaps they will now, but I dont fault the court for upholding the law.  That is what they are supposed to do!

Instead, I want to tell you about laws in most of the other states.  Granted many are red or (for the feeble of mind, Jesusland) States.

But in those states,the legislature has decreed, and I fully support them in this, that your email, documents and web surfing done on company owned computers is not only their business, but their property, and they can eaves drop on you anytime they want.  that includes your phone conversations.

Well, other than a hot email or phone call to my wife (I usually use my private cell phone, so not much there you wascally voyeurs!), I never expected mine to be.  Indeed, I do not send or receive (coda: more on this in a min) personal or compromising email that I dont expect them all to see!

I am network, not security, and I know they have access to all of it, but I dont care.

Except the porn spam I get!  Dont we all?  But as long as I dont click, I figure I am ok, right? 

Nah!  Because those message have seeds that goto the porn sites anyway.  So I try not to even open them!  Still, I know that if someone wanted to nail me, they could bring up a bunch of sites I have never visited, but when I opened a message from 'Chris' (A friend) that said Hi, that took me to a nasty site, I am in deep dodo!  Until I can explain it.

And most  people can easily as this is very common.  As long as you do not click on the links in the site (i.e visit it further) the Security folks know what is going on.

But that brings us to the nexus of this entry.  While we have no rights (only common sense) when it deals with our work correspondance and browsing, we could, if the security people were so inclined, be fired for not what we did, but what was done to us.

I.e., not even what we say, but what was sent. 

I will admit that is an extreme scenerio.  And unless you have an enemy in the Security department, you are ok as well.

BUT!  It also means we have less rights than the creep in Washington State!  While we have not done anything wrong, we can actually be fired or worse (in extreme cases) prosecuted!

And that little shit gets off?

Does anyone other than me see a major problem here?

The time to change the laws that are so stupid that you can fire someone for getting spam, yet you cannot protect your own children from predators!

If that had been a pedophile on the other end of the phone trying to lure that 14 year old into an illicit rendevous, the clowns in Washington would not have been able to do a damn thing!

But if it was some schmoe opening an email message at work that he did not solicit?  His (her) life is ruined.

Guess sanity has left politics and headed for the hills, cause that duck dont fly!


Comments
on Dec 22, 2004
Sanity left politics long ago my man:)
on Dec 22, 2004

Sanity left politics long ago my man:)

You would have to bring logic into this tirade!

Ok, point taken.  If not liked.

on Dec 22, 2004
hey drguy,,,,,, nice rant lol altho I cannot prove this I BELIEVE that the erosion of parental perogatives is responsible for the rising tide of children killers and trouble in general.... Spank a child go to prison..... but if that same child shoots someone everyone wants to Sue the parent.... I said spank not beat the bones of a child to powder. in case any BLEEDING HEART MAGGOTS read this and then acuse me of child beating.
on Dec 22, 2004

hey drguy,,,,,, nice rant lol altho I cannot prove this I BELIEVE that the erosion of parental perogatives is responsible for the rising tide of children killers and trouble in general.... Spank a child go to prison..... but if that same child shoots someone everyone wants to Sue the parent.... I said spank not beat the bones of a child to powder. in case any BLEEDING HEART MAGGOTS read this and then acuse me of child beating.

Moderate,

There is a court case where the parents are suing Walmart for not knowing that the 24 year old child was suicidal.  Even tho they claim that the Walmart should have know.  Based on what?

The fact that she had a perscription at another walmart for an anti depressant. Even tho it is clearly against the law to divulge that stuff.

If the courts give the parents anything but the back of their hand, that is a travesty!

We are not allowed to know, yet we are responsible! Great story!

on Dec 22, 2004
If that had been a pedophile on the other end of the phone trying to lure that 14 year old into an illicit rendevous, the clowns in Washington would not have been able to do a damn thing!
But if it was some schmoe opening an email message at work that he did not solicit? His (her) life is ruined.
That is exactly what was going through my mind when I wrote my blog!  Thank you for adding to this important dialogue.
on Dec 22, 2004

That is exactly what was going through my mind when I wrote my blog! Thank you for adding to this important dialogue.


That was not my intention, but it is a part of the result.  And while I dont blame the courts, I do blame the citizens that allow it to go forward.


Wil they listen? I doubt it. They know more than us stupid red staters.

on Dec 23, 2004
If that had been a pedophile on the other end of the phone trying to lure that 14 year old into an illicit rendevous, the clowns in Washington would not have been able to do a damn thing!


That is where you are wrong. If you simply overhear something on the phone and report it to the authorities you will NEVER get a conviction in the first place. If you bring it to the police they may set up sting in which they will catch someone in the act, or they may set up a wiretap, situations in which they are much more likely to get a conviction.
But you see they tried to take a shortcut in Washington, violated someones civils rights, disregarded the constitution, and now they have to retry the case. Thats called stupid cops not stupid laws.
on Dec 23, 2004

That is where you are wrong. If you simply overhear something on the phone and report it to the authorities you will NEVER get a conviction in the first place. If you bring it to the police they may set up sting in which they will catch someone in the act, or they may set up a wiretap, situations in which they are much more likely to get a conviction.
But you see they tried to take a shortcut in Washington, violated someones civils rights, disregarded the constitution, and now they have to retry the case. Thats called stupid cops not stupid laws.

Wrong!  No civil rights were violated, just a stupid law.  Thank God most states are smart enough not to pass bad laws like that.

on Dec 23, 2004
I cannot prove this I BELIEVE that the erosion of parental perogatives is responsible for the rising tide of children killers and trouble in general

There is no rising tide of child killers. Go to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics website and take a look for yourself. Homicide rates as a whole declined sharply from 1992-2000 and have since steadied, homicide rates of teens in that period declined even more. Homicide rates of preteens has always been relatively low. Sad thing is the largest percentage of child killers are parents and the lowest is strangers. Seems that the percentage of child homicides by parents has increased while those by strangers has decreased.

As to trouble in general:
Violent crime rates have declined since 1994, remained the lowest level ever recorded by the National Crime Victimization Survey in 2003.

If you look at violent crime rates on a regional basis New England has the lowest rates and South has the highest. Why is that?
Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership, yet has lower crime rates overall as well as those related to guns. Why is that?





on Dec 23, 2004

If you look at violent crime rates on a regional basis New England has the lowest rates and South has the highest. Why is that?
Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership, yet has lower crime rates overall as well as those related to guns. Why is that?

First to the part not quoted.  I agree.  Impotence has always been a great motivator for the weak of mind, and when you no longer have control, you seek other means.

Second, as to the regional rates, while I dont subscribe to it, many say that temperature has a lot to do with it.  But I will go so far as to say that the longer you are out, the more you have a chance to interact and thus be more friendly, and in some cases more deadly.

Finally, before I can comment on the latter (and really this is all off topic, but I do appreciate your questions), I would need to see the source of that comment/statistic.

Still, I welcome your response to the last one.  And perhaps we can start a new thread for the other ones?  They are excellant issues that need their own threads.

on Dec 23, 2004
"Still, I welcome your response to the last one. And perhaps we can start a new thread for the other ones?"

I was more just trying to provoke thought in my questions since there are no simple answers and it actually involves a whole realm of issues.....only one being where privacy fits into the picture. There are many economic, social, political, and environmental factors involved. But you hit the nail on the head seeing the ultimate goal. Friendly interaction vs. negative or in this case criminal interaction. My point being that most violent crimes involve familly, intimates, friends, and aquaintances as opposed to strangers. So should laws that deal with privacy be slanted towards fostering relationships because that is where the overwhelming problem lies? Its not like the authorities don't have overwhelming wiretap power....because they do. When I looked at the court documents from the Washington case what stuck out to me was that the mother and daughter relationship was destroyed. The cops should have wiretapped...instead they chose a route that took the trust right out from under a mother daughter relationship. Its one thing if a parent does a little evesdropping on their teens....its another when their teen finds out.

Anyhow as to your aspect of the thread....businesss.....it might be hard to change things since K street owns both parties

on Dec 24, 2004

Anyhow as to your aspect of the thread....businesss.....it might be hard to change things since K street owns both parties

What is K street?  I am unfamiliar with that colloquialism.