Guess Just What Happen

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

We seem to need to target Wisconsin with secession as well as California.

What is with your war on our nations dairy producers?

Actually, that's a good point. I drink a lot of dairy. We might need to deport the non-dairy producing Wisconsinites to California.

Now you're thinking smart... I would hate it if your bone density started to suffer on account of the national break up.

[Speaker to Animals]

What is with your war on our nations dairy producers?

Actually, that's a good point. I drink a lot of dairy. We might need to deport the non-dairy producing Wisconsinites to California.

Now you're thinking smart... I would hate it if your bone density started to suffer on account of the national break up.

We are talking about my gains here. I spent a lot of time in the gym for these gains. I will enslave every last dairy farmer to keep the whey protein flowing.

[jbird4049]

Sensenbrenner defends repealing internet privacy protections: ‘Nobody’s got to use the internet’

A Republican lawmaker provided a peculiar explanation Thursday in defense of his decision to recently back a controversial bill stripping privacy safeguards from internet users.

“Nobody’s got to use the internet,” Rep. F. James “Jim” Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin told constituents at a town hall event Thursday . . . .

A majority of congressional lawmakers including Mr. Sensenbrenner voted last month in support of letting Internet Service Providers (ISPs) sell and share their customers’ browsing history . . . .

Addressing criticism from a constituent Thursday, the congressman indicated internet access is hardly compulsory.

“Well, you know… nobody’s got to use the internet,” Mr, Sensenbrenner answered back. “And the thing is that if you start regulating the internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no internet.”

The congressman’s quip was quickly met with further criticism, as well as clarification from the lawmaker’s own Twitter account.

Following Thursday’s town hall, Twitter user Brad Bainum shared a video of the congressman’s response with the caption: “[Mr. Sensenbrenner] tells his constituents not to use the internet if they don’t like his vote to sell out their privacy to advertisers.”

“Actually, he said that nobody has to use the internet,” Mr. Sensenbrenner’s Twitter account tweeted back. “They have a choice. Big difference.”

Is this what we used to call a non sequitur?

No, that really requires thinking, and speaking, logically for that. Here he either spewed out some dogmatic Libertarian talking points because listening, thinking, and responding to the actual issues requires effort, and respecting his constituents. Please. Or maybe we should look at his campaign "contributions" from Comcast and the like.

[jbird4049]

Here is the situation, the majority of people overshare shit all the time... so why should they be worried about their privacy?

Those who are afraid, or don't want their stuff sold, already are taking precautions. But in reality, it won't matter...the government can get access to it at any time they want...

The internet was created, marketed, and represented as a secure communications tool. The impression was deliberately made, at every step of the way, on every single website, that your traffic was between you and the recipient. Don't pretend that there was some kind of "consent" made at any point for peoples' lives to be bought and sold.

Wow... you are so wrong on so many levels...

The internet was never meant to be a secure communication tool. It was meant to be a way to allow free flowing information and ideas. It was originally designed to allow colleges and universities to exchange ideas, it was never meant for the general public, after ARPANET that is.

The security you are now expecting was added onto it as an afterthought.

And on a side note, the consent was given when you signed a contract with your ISP... it's written into the fine print.

Using the internet is just about essential for living in modern society. There is no consent to give or take back in the dense, confusing, multi-page 8 point type contract especially when there's a monopoly where you live, or maybe dial-up. Students, businesses, researchers, anyone really, have no other options.

Further, everything from my cousin's Facebook page to this website to your bank account to the security of nuclear reactors depends on a reliable secure internet. If we don't have it, we have problems.

[jbird4049]

Actually, that's a good point. I drink a lot of dairy. We might need to deport the non-dairy producing Wisconsinites to California.

Now you're thinking smart... I would hate it if your bone density started to suffer on account of the national break up.

We are talking about my gains here. I spent a lot of time in the gym for these gains. I will enslave every last dairy farmer to keep the whey protein flowing.

I heard goat milk is healthier for you!

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Now you're thinking smart... I would hate it if your bone density started to suffer on account of the national break up.

We are talking about my gains here. I spent a lot of time in the gym for these gains. I will enslave every last dairy farmer to keep the whey protein flowing.

I heard goat milk is healthier for you!

AW HELL YES IT IS!



HAIL SATAN!

[The Conservative]

The internet was created, marketed, and represented as a secure communications tool. The impression was deliberately made, at every step of the way, on every single website, that your traffic was between you and the recipient. Don't pretend that there was some kind of "consent" made at any point for peoples' lives to be bought and sold.

Wow... you are so wrong on so many levels...

The internet was never meant to be a secure communication tool. It was meant to be a way to allow free flowing information and ideas. It was originally designed to allow colleges and universities to exchange ideas, it was never meant for the general public, after ARPANET that is.

The security you are now expecting was added onto it as an afterthought.

And on a side note, the consent was given when you signed a contract with your ISP... it's written into the fine print.

Using the internet is just about essential for living in modern society. There is no consent to give or take back in the dense, confusing, multi-page 8 point type contract especially when there's a monopoly where you live, or maybe dial-up. Students, businesses, researchers, anyone really, have no other options.

Further, everything from my cousin's Facebook page to this website to your bank account to the security of nuclear reactors depends on a reliable secure internet. If we don't have it, we have problems.

The main purpose of the internet was never meant to be for public consumption in it's current form. It was designed for schools, universities, and entities such as DARPA to share data freely.

What it has become is nothing short of amazing, but it was never designed to do what it is doing now... we have built layers upon layers of security and protections on top of it... and most people still haven't realized it's all for not because the core basis of the system is nothing short free and open sharing on information.

Your "protection" still doesn't fix the inherent problem with the internet, which is that it's not secure, and never has been. Internet 2.0 is a better step in the protection scheme of things, but it is not, nor will it be there till people realize that the only way to be truly secure is not to be on it.

[Hastur]

Are you sure you're not confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web?

[Ph64]

Are you sure you're not confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web?

Most people these days think they are synonymous and use them interchangeably, when they are not in reality.

[The Conservative]

Are you sure you're not confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web?

The WWW is a layer on top of the Internet...