Driver’s licenses for the Internet

What makes you think that the world’s governments can create a secure identification system for all of the internet users in the world? You mean, like a driver’s license? Those can’t be faked, right? Or the social security number? Spare me.

Leave authentication to the web site owners who have a business interest in protecting their assets.

As the New York cartoon says, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”

When I took office, only high energy physicists had ever heard of what is called the Worldwide Web….

Now even my cat has its own page.

Bill Clinton (1946 – ),
announcement of Next Generation Internet initiative, 1996

http://japan-russia.jimdo.com/caricature/

@davess: I love that cartoon.

(enters the contradiction of every comment posted, center stage)

“Hi guys!”

No. A thousand times no. This benefits no one but “the people in charge”.

Drivers’ licenses ensure a basic level of driving competency, so that 13-year-olds don’t get drunk and drive into a schoolbus. That kind of stupidity doesn’t happen on the Internet.

Drivers’ licenses (or other global ID’s) don’t prevent willful maliciousness from happening. A hit man with someone’s wife in his trunk might have a spotless record.

And, as has already been mentioned, ID’s can be faked.

Enough security theater! Focus on actual security. Truly awful idea, Barbara.

I, for one, welcome our new internet overlords. It will be a comforting time when “the law” comes along to protect people from themselves on the net, because gosh darn it, freedom is dangerous. Not to mention, standards only ever come about through coercive government action, and never through private parties responding to their own incentives.

No, it is not needed. If the law needs to find out, they can find out who it was already in most cases. Even with some sort of system like that if I wanted, I could still hide my identity to the point it would not be traced back to me.

Is the author still going to feel that way when someone uses your or someone’s “internet drivers license” to commit a crime when they do not want it traced back to themselves? You would only be giving them a way to track you or others that might need some sort of protection on the internet, not the ones actually doing things people would need protection from.

Actually being attached to your own identity on the internet would be wonderful. You would build a reputation based off of your actions towards other people and others would treat you according to how you treat others. I think this way it would stop some of the ignorant and childish behavior that is rampant among the internet.

Imagine the internet where people had to live by their decisions.

What an awesome suggestion. I have been blogging and posting about Cyber criminals who have attacked and violated innocent citizens like me on line and through the use of other technology.

The police, FBI and other agencies appear to be SUPER reactive in handling these matters.

Criminals like Nigerian fraudsters have all but cornered the market in online fabrication of identities, breaking into and altering legitimate government and other sites, stealing people’s likeness, corporate espionage here in the US etc.

They continue their acts with impunity.

As I have always stated here and elsewhere, while the length of the run of identified criminals is finite, the growth and acts of these crooks is further encouraged by the apparent mass ignorance of the general public (including the press) about the acts of these felons.

It is my hope that more people understand that even if they are not targeted now, crimes which are not curtailed and rigorously prosecuted all too soon become a canker which requires very significant resources (governmental and otherwise), to quell.

It is amazing that the average so called enlightened user does not recognize even simple facts that your cellphone microphone can be used to rove and spy on you by any criminally adroit low life criminal.

Technology has made the crimes of so many vagabonds much easier to implement.
Of course, the Internet is bursting with misinformation on technology criminality and its implementation, misinformation posted and distributed by these same felons and their cohorts.

You think Nigerian criminals even here in the USA are just sending emails in order to rob Americans??
The same thing they have done for so many years??? Technology has been developing but apparently someone somewhere imagines these felons are unmindful or unaware of the crimes they can now commit anonymously online??? How silly!

Even when identified, these crooks still run around law enforcement conning and misleading them.

The Internet was not created with such a large user base in mind, however it has grown exponentially without regulation.

People take it for granted that it somehow promotes free speech therefore that singular redeeming quality makes up for the fact that it is the singular MOST effective tool for Adult and Child Predators and Stalkers to attack and violate innocent citizens.

People have to become more enlightened, the laws have to be changed, governments should be able to better monitor and prosecute technology based crimes.

Let us start with the most basic of description changes—

“Crimes against the person committed through the use of technology are not CYBERCRIMES—the targets are people… human beings. Those crimes should be described and defined as what they are –CRIMES!!” They are
crimes committed through the use of technology.

If an adult is stalked, abused, robbed and violated through the use of technology, those crimes are felonies, the targets victims of crimes, and the people who commit those crimes are common criminals!! Criminals who should be treated like their “real time counterparts”-tried and jailed.

The Internet is an integral part of daily life for most people. The only crimes committed online are not financial, Abuse, violence, kidnapping, theft all occur through the use of technology. People who commit these crimes against other people using technology belong in Federal prisons.

A crime is a crime is a crime. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. The means to the eventual completed criminal conduct should not be so gray. So long as a crime is committed the felons should do time. That is the LAW. Technology adroit criminals deserve no different treatment. They should be hunted like other common felons.

The explosion of technology crimes is imminent. One only hopes that government agencies are pro actively monitoring this growing threat and preparing to meet it with the knowlwedge and dexterity it takes.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

Leave it to a Microsoft research engineer to come up with this one. It sounds like Microsoft wants more control than what they already have, like spying on other competitors and their software applications.

I would sure stay away from this idea, its a bad idea gone worse.

I think bloggers ought to be fingerprinted, DNA tested for abnormalities and have the information safely stored in a government vault. That way when some authoritarian ruler of pit, decides you have broken his self made tyrannic law he can prosecute you. For being a journalist you sure are s—-d, anonymity protects the right of free speech especially when the scary internet is most dangerous in a nation that prosecutes freedom of speech and opinion. The biggest thugs and criminals you mentioned are corrupt governments. I bet you love China’s safe internet measures huh? But there are worse than China. Have you ever heard of what happens to whistleblowers in these shams of nations? You ought to be arrested for ignorance on the rights you endow, your big mouth and little faculty. And while your at it you should have to be taxed for opening your mouth on the internet, after all someone has to pay for the ID cops.

As far as Microsoft, I’m sure they have all the ideas how to implement this protection software with DRM. Most everyone of technical savvy know how well that works. Look it up and while you are at it look up the abuse of Microsoft and how Linux is a much safer alternative than its foes with silly control notions of biometrically cataloging all our personal information and forcing a foisting an insecure operations system such as Vista on us. Maybe microsoft see the internet as scary because they never learned how to protect their kernel from hackers and friends. I bet when they designed Windows, they just figured their buddies would be the only users (what a joke!)

I’m tired of English majors thinking that they know so much, when most have a speech impediment and brain malfunction and should really take a serious class of “shut up 101″ on what they don’t understand or know. I bet you never got liberty or tyranny in history class did you?

Oh I get it, you get paid for every comment that draws ire and blood. At least that would retire you from plain st-p-d to to just plain amoral.

The internet is the only thing preventing total tyranny right now, and they are trying everything they can to chill free speech. There is NO grass roots movement anywhere calling for government intervention in the internet. It is not broken. It works too well, that is a problem for tyrants. Obama wants to redesign it so it can be centrally shut down. They want ID’s to track you and chill government criticism. Maybe put you on a terror watch list. Do not accept ANY argument for ANY gov intervention no matter how good it sounds. NONE! Also, look for anyone promoting it so you know not to trust them with any other news.

Seeing how Microsoft respects the rules and regulations of countries like China, I’m sure they will be the first to hand over the IDs when China comes a knocking. If Google suggested Internet Licenses, than I’d know we were scrogged. Thank goodness that Google along with all the other sane Linux community will be replacing the defunct has been Microsoft as the 10 ton gorilla. In a few years, Microsoft and its despised worthless operating system will be sitting in the garbage alongside my commodore 64. But at least the commodore 64 was really miraculous for its time, unlike Windows a market lagger and staller. That’s because Microsoft has no creativity, no backbone, and represents no one except their own self exploits. Yeah I used to defend Microsoft, but like this author I was immature and brainless in my youth.

Anonymity is necessary on the internet to protect free speech, especially political speech in the reality of the systems that have been designed by corporations like Cisco for policing Chinese thoughtcrimes. Anonymous speech is Supreme Court affirmed and enjoys 250 years of American tradition.

Talk of authorizing and licensing Internet users is pure Authoritarianism to it’s core.

Bearing that in mind, this article is curious coming from a writer who’s bio mentions “how Verizon really got her angry by asking for her Social Security number”.

Can you say, “Cognitive Dissonances”?

No public accessed and used system like the Internet–used by all sections of the general public (Adults and Children alike) should be run without LAW.

For some inexplicable reason, Federal law enforcement is slow and unable to keep citizens safe from technology adroit criminals who commit acts against people.

Breaking into email is treated with levity while breaking into post office mail carries a stiff penalty and a FEDERAL JAIL SENTENCE. I think the distinction is absurd. Mail is mail and tampering with mail should be a crime whether that mail is electronic or manual (on paper).

The Internet is not a virtual world that exists on its own. It inextricably and absolutely entwined to real time. Infact many people conduct almost all aspects of their lives online. These days, to rob a person, you do not have to go their home.. you break into their computer and steal their passwords, identity etc. and your can pretty destroy a person’s life.

Almost anyone can apply for a job online and get interviewed in “real time”. You can chat with someone online and make a connection in real time, meeting one on one.

It is absurd for anyone to tout deregulation as the same thing as to be without law.

The Internet cannot remain like a wilderness WITHOUT ANY strong deterrent or LEGAL framework/standard to STEM and stop the growing bred of technology adroit vermin.
Criminals who will do anything to rob, steal and even kill.

As an example, I met a woman whose daughter was lured away by a Predator.

He had a fake identity on line (his picture and all other information was fabricated). Her daughter is presumed to be the dead woman whose body parts were found in the area in which her daughter was last seen.

This woman was stalked online for years as well by the man whom she believed eventually murdered her daughter.

In the course of promoting awareness about the growing scourge of technology criminals, I have met an incredible number of women (especially) who are assaulted online and violently criminalized by 21st century technology savvy hoodlums.

Stalking and tracking a person is a crime, and since that involves breaking Federal laws, these crimes should be prosecuted and punished under the usual Federal guidelines. This does not happen frequently!

The Internet is a community of the world and governments should regulate and protect users of this forum.

If criminals who abuse these technologies by tracking, stalking and violating people (some Nigerian fraudsters in the US and UK now commit corporate espionage and theft using technology as their weapon of choice) are not investigated, prosecuted and jailed, Technology crimes will be much worse and more vicious in the future.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

Will I be allowed to text while I am surfing?

The issue with most attempts to stem the tide is it is just plain wrong logic: keeping the honest people honest, letting the dishonest have free rein.

In TX we saw the introduction of PI licensing requirements for someone doing the most rudimentrary of computer security assessments, you do not think tools, false identities and attack vectors will not continue to profer…and now we are going to make available a database of the good guys to be under almost certain continous attack as it is considered pulbic knowledge?

And I do disagree with the original intent of WWW not being for the free exchange of information, that was its intent, what was quickly learned is the resources should not be free. And remember the cost of computing and HD space was extremely expensive way back when. Here we are, jumping all over the ISPs for wanting to do non-capture packet inspection for bandwidths utilized way over the norm, but then we can talk about an idiot idea such as this? We know authentication for almost all financial transactions are extremely weak, and the perhaps the biggest obstacle is the inside “greedy” person. And then yeah, you have the stupidity…like the Town Manager embezzeling town funds for a Nigearian Scheme (although she had long, upstanding credentials in banking and finance.)

Nope, I’m going to disagree. We have to allow the capture of information, the reverse engineering, and the companies (whether public/private) the right to monitor their networks.

Authentication is no where near where it needs to be to even be debating this topic.

The Internet may be the last bastion of Free Thinking
left on the Planet. Your rationalizations in support of
Global Oversight are both Orwellian and Marxist.
Please stay out of our laptops. You are an unwelcome
intrusion into our last mode of True Freedom of
Expression. Paranoia does not become you. Nor
does Authoritarianism. This Progressivist agenda
does not bode well for Individual Liberty. But can we
expect a Swiss to appreciate that? I mean no offense.
Can we really expect anyone in Europe to value
anything even remotely close to the Libertarianism
that America was founded upon? Hey, I like Euros
and I’m something of a Continental Rationalist.
So please don’t take my assertion as a negative
judgment call. Take it as a valid counter claim to
the author’s original premise.

you dummy, barbara is is telling us what she heard Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief research and technology officer
tell a gathering of people.

the internet requires servers and access to the network that makes up the WWW. if servers have to be authenticated before accessing the web, then users of that server will be authenticated by that part of the network. if one security breaches come from the server that has been authenticated, then the www oversight body (licensor office) would deny service to that server. road closed. people are funny to me sometime, me not being a person. you cant take away my rights. i have a right to shoot myself in the foot with this here gun. i have a right to have someone steal my identity on the internet. i have a right to kill this person cause he killed someone else. i have a right to smoke these cigarettes. i have a right to drive this car without a license, while intoxicated into a school bus. i have a right… what about the right to live? or the right to think for yourself? we all have a right to these things, but we don’t spend too much time lobbying for them.

Oh my what an awful idea! I won’t go into the absolute detail but I’ll make a few points.

1) Craig Mundie is a businessman who sells, among other things Microsoft’s ‘trusted computing’ and ‘digital rights management’ software. When I last examined their offerings both used, indeed required, a system where every user was forced to identify themselves with a unique nonanonyous and nontransferrable ID. Both systems in fact failed without it.

Like Larry Ellison, head of Oracle who devoted time after 9/11 to talking up the virtues of massive government databases, Mundie would make large amounts of money if this were to pass. If the one world government or whomever chose to make us all identify ourselves and only use a “trusted ID” then they would need to buy it from someone and it just so happens that Mundie is in charge of selling that. Indeed I know of no other company that is pushing this kind of technology so Mundie would have a lock on the market.

Indeed, without such forcing the fact is there is no market. Noone has purchased the trusted computing technology in large amounts and Microsofts limited introduction of DRM into Windows Vista was not welcomed by the genral public. So Mundie’s products aren’t moving and likely won’t unless the one world government forces us to buy them.

2) Despite your brief aside about ‘ID’s can be faked’ that is, in fact, quite important. They can and would be faked, and the use of valid ID does not guarantee innocence. I am under the impression that some of the 9/11 hijacker had fake ID while others actually had valid identification which they did present upon boarding the plane. So an ID regime does not make any guarantees. At best one can trace information after the fact but, as you said, IDs can be faked.

3) In a response to Lawyermommy, yes bad people do hideous things on the internet. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Indeed, in many ways they are. Better prosecution would be good but technology which can, and will, be faked is not the answer nor is a change in our policy. A massive system that trades all anonymity of honest people for no appreciable gain in security (the stupid criminals would already be caught) is not useful.

4) Anonymity is not evil. Indeed as other posters have pointed out anonymity is the bane of oppressive governments, cruel tyrants, and vindictive bosses. This is why protection from unreasonable search and seizure is written into the U.S. Constitution. it is also why the Constitution deals with such issues as quartering troops in peoples’ homes. This is why the colonists who staged attacks on British tea chose to disguise themselves and why Benjamin Franklin published under a number of pseudonyms.

Do you really want a world where every boss, ex boyfriend, etc can track what you do online to you? Keep in mind that during the last election government employees were fired for accessing personal details from the candidates. What would stop any existing official from digging up dirt on their political enemies, as J. Edgar Hoover founder of the FBI did? Or any vindictive individual from tracking your friends?

Indeed the bottom line is that this won’t work. Consider the “Great Firewall of China.” Ultimately it is an expensive failure. It does not protect average citizens from online scams, predators, or basic verbal abuse. Nor does it even allow the authorities to block political opposition or undesirable information (their actual goal). Indeed online sentiment is still so negative that they have taken to paying people to say nice things online and to identify opposition (50 cent army). Nevertheless they spend an increasing amount of money on it each year to minimal gains.

Any such system would require a one world government to implement or Nigeria would make a mint doing anonymous work. The amount of money that would have to be spent would be excessive and ever increasing as new technology would develop. At best it would catch dumb criminals and stifle legitimate but unpopular views or allow those in power to stifle dissent. And the only real winners would the the company that develops it. It would have to be controlled by a single company or, as with the Nigeria case, it would likely fall apart. Even then it still would because that company would need to get hardware and software made somewhere and as a recent article in Businessweek showing that U.S. purchased weapons systems (jets I believe) were being sent to them with incorrect, but physically identical, chips indicates monitoring of all hardware and software is not an option.

At the end of the day the answer is locks. Rather than set up government cameras on every corner to see who might walk into our unlocked doors we install locks. And we educate ourselves individually about not using insecure operating systems or giving out personal details online. It is cheaper, not subject to government control, and ultimately more effective. Yes people still break and enter but as Britain has discovered, cameras do not prevent crime.

Mundie skipped over a number of other options along these lines. One could, for example, use a different operating system that does not have the history of bugs, holes, and virii that Windows is saddled with. These include MacOS, GNU/Linux, and BSD none of which is made by Microsoft. One could also install virus protection, which Microsoft does not, or a firewall, which Microsoft did not for years after the others have.

But I think that I’ve made my point.

Nice Microsoft ad by the way.

Absolutely hideous proposal.

Being anonymous is how I protect myself. How can identifying myself to all the thieves on the Internet protect me? My identity is unique and I’m quite easy to find given the right pieces of information. This is precisely why social security numbers are insecure.

Microsoft is historically a backwards-looking company that only looks hi-tech to people who are so far behind that they do NOT immediately see every Microsoft product as a “Microsoft version of product Y” (often preceded by years of telling everybody that nobody really wants product Y).

So it’s not surprising that a Microsoft CTO’s solution to bring law and order to the Internet is to copy something old and inappropriate that barely works in the environment that it was designed for — a “driver’s license”. Cuz, yeah, nobody ever fakes a driver’s license

But the failure of driver’s licenses gets to the real problem. Real security on the Internet probably depends on really reliable authentication, which will probably have to be biometric.

I’m going to have to admit no surprise here. I’m sure the Obama administration will be one of the first to sign up. I disagree with the author and the idea completely. She uses the analogy of getting to walk into a bank vault and being required to show I.D. Bad analogy. A bank vault is private property and the owner of the bank has every right to limit who gets in and how may “hurdles” must be cleared. We can do the same today with any internet website. Why do they think all the goofy log-in requirements were created? The amount of “hurdles” (security) required is left up to the owner, just as it should be. In addition, I’d like to see someone set up a Visa account for victims in Haiti without a paper trail. We take credit cards and you practically sign your life away to Visa/MC in order accept their cards. PayPal is very stringent, too.

My opposition is knowing the government, if they choose to do so, will observe all that John Q Public is doing on the internet. It is none of their business. The government cannot enter my home and look at the books on my shelf, or read my mail (including – email), without my permission or a warrant. (That pesky probable cause requirement rears its ugly head again!) Do you think they’ll get a warrant if they want to know the websites you’ve been visiting or the people you’ve been corresponding with? Do you think the Obama administration would have asked supporters to notify them of citizens who were saying “fishy things” online or taken matters into their own hands? I’m sure the Bush Administration would have loved this, too. Put a pretty name on it…something like “The Patriot Act”.

Let’s talk about web-fraud. In many (most?) cases, banks make money off credit card fraud. I made this discovery when we were being pounded by fraudulent attempts on our ecommerce website. We never had a fraudulent transaction get past our security (it was cranked up as high as we could get it) and there were many nights when 400 attempts were made! Over the years, tens of thousands of attempts were made and we paid $0.25 for each one! In addition, if product had been shipped we would have had the funds withdrawn from our account in full plus a fee for the trouble (I believe it was about $35.00) Be advised, there are no minimum security requirements by the banks. Only the account number and expiration date have to be correct and they’ll approve the transcation. it’s companies like Authorize.net, paid for by the merchants, that prevent most of the fraud. (Other than being a customer, I have no affiliation with Authorize.net) Many banks tell their card carrying customers, “no worries, you have fraud protection and are only liable for $50 maximum”. Many banks waive this entirely but some still charge a fee. Therefore, it is possible for a bank to make $85, or more, on a fraudulent transaction and ALWAYS leave the merchant holding the bag. The merchants have no recourse. To add insult to injury, internet merchants are charged a higher percentage for accepting credit cards due to being “high risk”, yet it is the merchant who suffers ALL the exposure. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why the banks would want to kill this cash cow. I’m also waiting for card carrying customers to start asking banks why the would be held liable for any financial transactions they did not execute and the BANK APPROVED. Ever wonder why any online transaction doesn’t require complete name, address, expiration, phone, CVN, and even a PIN for approval? These are simple to implement and of little nuisance to the consumer but they would increase the difficulty of committing fraud exponentially. I’ve also wondered why banks don’t REQUIRE photo I.D. when handing a merchant your card. Years ago a major bank started putting photos on their credit cards to limit fraud. They don’t do that anymore. My guess is it cut into the bottom line too much. Any automated card machine should require a billing address zip code and/or a PIN at minimum. Electronic signatures are worthless and I have proven it by intentionally scribbling just to see if it would reject the transaction. Signatures are for assigning blame after the fact, not for preventing fraud.

If banks were the ones suffering the losses, they would take action to limit them. To prove my point we have recently experienced difficulty with our debit card. We frequently buy materials in bulk that run from $1500-$4000. I prefer to do business using a debit card because it allows immediate shipment, the merchant pays less in fees (as compared to a credit card), and I don’t have to set up an account with the merchant and go through the billing process. This saves us and the merchant a lot of time and energy. When we first got our debit cards, the maximum daily limit was $1000. This was insufficient for many of our transactions so we had it increased. Half a dozen times over the years the maximum daily amount would be “reset” to $1000. Of course, we discovered this not through notification by the bank but by a failed attempt to process the card. (Great customer service!) Now, our bank refuses to increase above $1000 daily because, “they are liable for all the monies that are stolen from an account”. They keep telling me to, “get a credit card, that will shift the liability away from us”. Yes, those were her exact words! By shifting it back to the merchants the banks will realize a profit from the fraud.

I am looking for a new bank. The first one I inquired with told me they could see about increasing above $1000/day once the account was set up but couldn’t make any promises. In the end, I may set up accounts and begin hand writing checks again. I’ll admit some satisfaction knowing the bank won’t be getting a percentage. If we all did this, the banks would change their behavior.

I think your response is either just ignorant or deliberately misleading either way, I am racing out of the house and so I recopied your post and responded briefly to most of your outrageous and unsupportable Averments!

“1) Craig Mundie is a businessman who sells, among other things Microsoft’s ‘trusted computing’ and ‘digital rights management’ software. When I last examined their offerings both used, indeed required, a system where every user was forced to identify themselves with a unique nonanonyous and nontransferrable ID. Both systems in fact failed without it.
Like Larry Ellison, head of Oracle who devoted time after 9/11 to talking up the virtues of massive government databases, Mundie would make large amounts of money if this were to pass. If the one world government or whomever chose to make us all identify ourselves and only use a “trusted ID” then they would need to buy it from someone and it just so happens that Mundie is in charge of selling that. Indeed I know of no other company that is pushing this kind of technology so Mundie would have a lock on the market.
Indeed, without such forcing the fact is there is no market. Noone has purchased the trusted computing technology in large amounts and Microsofts limited introduction of DRM into Windows Vista was not welcomed by the genral public. So Mundie’s products aren’t moving and likely won’t unless the one world government forces us to buy them”
_________________________________
My response: You have awarded the contract to Mundie?? This was a suggestion that came from ONE organization.

Mundie?? Did you award him the contract???

The Social Security numbers which citizens have is used for many other purposes and is managed by the government.

Because this suggestion came from the private sector does not mean that it would be their responsibility. In fact, implementing security on such a massive meduim like the we WILL NOT and CANNOT contracted to the private sector alone.

The remark above falls into the category of arguments I repeatedly am provided by the new breed of 21st century criminals who stand to gain the most from the present state of the wild and dangerous Internet and the ignorance of the general public of the Technology tools that can and are being used against them.
___
“2)Despite your brief aside about ‘ID’s can be faked’ that is, in fact, quite important. They can and would be faked, and the use of valid ID does not guarantee innocence. I am under the impression that some of the 9/11 hijacker had fake ID while others actually had valid identification which they did present upon boarding the plane. So an ID regime does not make any guarantees. At best one can trace information after the fact but, as you said, IDs can be faked.
_______________________________
My response:
Even though an ID can be faked and some people did use their real identities in 9/11 and some criminals do so during the commission of a crime.

A FAKE identity is a red flag which can set off the needed investigation which would be required to stop criminal acts. If you have a group of crooks, you only need a couple of them in custody to begin to unravel their criminal conduct.

_________
“3)In a response to Lawyermommy, yes bad people do hideous things on the internet. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Indeed, in many ways they are. Better prosecution would be good but technology which can, and will, be faked is not the answer nor is a change in our policy. A massive system that trades all anonymity of honest people for no appreciable gain in security (the stupid criminals would already be caught) is not useful.
____________________________

My response:
Most honest people I have spoken to are willing to cede some of their anonymity to stay SAFE.

Infact it is a proven fact that most honest people would willingly do so. Women and men I have met in the course of running my foundation, especially those who have suffered irreparable harm in the hands of technology adroit criminals especially Pedophiles, stalkers and rapists who can use technology to track and murder innocents do not think the weight of anonymous surfing outweighs the need of law enforcement to identify, investigate and prosecute felons.

Anyone who has watched the “Predator” show hosted by Chris Hansen will find that all the contacts were made online.

This was just a TV show and so you can imagine the millions of children and other unreported cases in which the web is used anonymously to violate and sometimes even kill these children.

Adults are also violated, stalked and murdered by these same criminals for whom the Internet provides several levels of cover for them to commit their violent acts.
_________
4) “Anonymity is not evil. Indeed as other posters have pointed out anonymity is the bane of oppressive governments, cruel tyrants, and vindictive bosses. This is why protection from unreasonable search and seizure is written into the U.S. Constitution. it is also why the Constitution deals with such issues as quartering troops in peoples’ homes. This is why the colonists who staged attacks on British tea chose to disguise themselves and why Benjamin Franklin published under a number of pseudonyms.
Do you really want a world where every boss, ex boyfriend, etc can track what you do online to you? Keep in mind that during the last election government employees were fired for accessing personal details from the candidates. What would stop any existing official from digging up dirt on their political enemies, as J. Edgar Hoover founder of the FBI did? Or any vindictive individual from tracking your friends?
Indeed the bottom line is that this won’t work. Consider the “Great Firewall of China.” Ultimately it is an expensive failure. It does not protect average citizens from online scams, predators, or basic verbal abuse. Nor does it even allow the authorities to block political opposition or undesirable information (their actual goal). Indeed online sentiment is still so negative that they have taken to paying people to say nice things online and to identify opposition (50 cent army). Nevertheless they spend an increasing amount of money on it each year to minimal gains.
Any such system would require a one world government to implement or Nigeria would make a mint doing anonymous work. The amount of money that would have to be spent would be excessive and ever increasing as new technology would develop. At best it would catch dumb criminals and stifle legitimate but unpopular views or allow those in power to stifle dissent. And the only real winners would the the company that develops it. It would have to be controlled by a single company or, as with the Nigeria case, it would likely fall apart. Even then it still would because that company would need to get hardware and software made somewhere and as a recent article in Businessweek showing that U.S. purchased weapons systems (jets I believe) were being sent to them with incorrect, but physically identical, chips indicates monitoring of all hardware and software is not an option.
At the end of the day the answer is locks. Rather than set up government cameras on every corner to see who might walk into our unlocked doors we install locks. And we educate ourselves individually about not using insecure operating systems or giving out personal details online. It is cheaper, not subject to government control, and ultimately more effective. Yes people still break and enter but as Britain has discovered, cameras do not prevent crime.
Mundie skipped over a number of other options along these lines. One could, for example, use a different operating system that does not have the history of bugs, holes, and virii that Windows is saddled with. These include MacOS, GNU/Linux, and BSD none of which is made by Microsoft. One could also install virus protection, which Microsoft does not, or a firewall, which Microsoft did not for years after the others have. “
_____________________________

My response:

I will respond very briefly to your lengthy paragraph above in a few lines. Anonymity is not bad but the fact is that INNOCENTS ONLINE ARE NOT ANONYMOUS.

Most people can be easily traced and tracked by their IP addresses. It is easy to pound a firewall and compel it to accept dangerous packets and thereby compromise the privacy of the owner.

Only the web adroit and yes, the criminals have mastered the act of using vehicles like “TOR” etc. and other layers of identity cover to surf the web.
The average person can be very easily located, tracked and followed online.

ANONYMITY for honest users of the web is largely non existent. I can find most people who read or comment on any site and I am no computer specialist.
You can therefore imagine what those whose sole livelihood or existence is based on their ability to rob, track, molest and violate using technology as their WEAPON OF CHOICE.

Hey, even here on “wordpress”, unless you are adroit at hiding your identity, you can easily be traced back to your home.

Your phone number and social security are easily obtained once your address and name are obtained. Most truly Internet savvy Network Security folks can get such information information in minutes.

So, the average user of the web even at this time has NO anonymity from criminals and other vagrants that use the web to commit vile heinous crimes including rape and murder. The regulation of the web through the creation of DYNAMIC LAWS which assist in tracking and exposing violent felons will help make the web a safer place for all users.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

What an interesting discourse.

My foundation keeps people online safe. We advocate for the safety and security of people and try and keep them away from technology hounds.

When I come back online I will be responding some more comments which I think are fallacious and misleading in every way.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/technology-savvy-nigerian-criminals-are-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security

I take issue with Mundies example.
Yes, in real life, there are “certain places” where I need identification.
I too, am comfortable with “certain places” in the internet, that need authentification.
However, if “the internet” needs authentification, I’d be as uncomfortable as in a worldd where I need to identify when opening my door and will be tracked continuously until I arrive back home. But that’s what most current proposals amount to.

Lawyermommy, if my comments are ignorant or misleading explain how. I neither claimed that the internet was perfectly anonymous nor that bad people don’t do bad thing.

I have not awarded any contract to Mundie. Indeed if I had my way there would be no contract to award. Mundie is the man pushing for this to occur and, as I stated, it is not coincidental that he is in charge of developing and selling a product at Microsoft that would fill this contract if it existed. Indeed, as I pointed out his company is one of the only companies doing this kind of work.

Of course no system like this could be contracted to the private sector, it would have to be government run with a large and expensive bureaucracy. Nevertheless the technology would be privately developed and, if it were brought into existence, would look a great deal like what Mundie sells.

Fake identities are not always detected, yes if detected it would be a red flag but there is no guarantee that it would be so.

I am surprised by your assertion that most of the people you speak to would be willing to cede anonymity for this. Most of the honest people I speak to, both the technologically adroit and the technologically inexperienced feel differently. They feel that being forced to identify yourself at all times would ease some forms of attack (e.g. stalking and abuse) both of which people I know have suffered from, and would add in the prospect of government or private abuse which represents a manifest threat to safety.

Ultimately, it seems to me, your argument is that people, particularly children, are not technologically skilled enough to protect themselves and can be attacked. You also pointed out that firewalls can be compromised. I agree to both points.

Where I differ is in the solutions I support. Any technical solution such as a “drivers license for the internet” would be subject to flaws as well, flaws that would meet or exceed the problems of current firewalls.

What I support instead is public education and self-defense. I think that children should be taught about the dangers of going online, and that parents should monitor them in their use of technology. My parents spent time checking with my use of computers just as they spent time teaching me not to talk to strangers (either on the street or online). At the same time I have taken the time to learn about tools such as NoScript, Kiddix, firewalls, etc. dedicated to protecting myself online. Yes bad people develop new methods and seek to attack me and I have to monitor threats but that is no different than having to check the oil in my car or monitor the state of my neighborhood when I go out.

At the end of the day I think we both want people to be safe online. I just don’t see a large, likely overpriced, and certainly unsuccessful ‘drivers license’ as the solution, I see it as a problem. I take this view because existing licensing systems are not foolproof and are often compromised by exactly the people who would attack an online form. Existing online examples (e.g. China) illustrate the high costs of large-scale monitoring, the failure of large-scale monitoring to keep people safe (they still have virii, etc. there), and the risk of it being used for political control.

For someone who’s badgering English professors, you sure don’t know how to spell. So please, before you comment, spell check or something. You’re just embarrassing yourself. =]

This is one of the most Orwellian ideas I have heard in a while, which is saying something in today’s climate. The internet was started by a “bunch of guys”? The internet was started by the military, not some guys sitting around in their garage. And I bet they DID want anonymity so anyone intercepting their communications would not know who was communicating.

And what’s so wrong with anonymity on the internet in the first place? You say you want someone to be identified if they set up a site to accept credit card payments. Well, what about scammers who call you up and trick you into giving your credit card number? You might be able to track where that phone is, but no way to tell who was actually USING the phone. Do you want people to swipe their fingerprints before making phone calls then? If you are stupid enough to give your credit card information out on the internet to a person/company that you know nothing about, then you deserve to be ripped off. A fool and his money are soon parted.

I agree with one of the above posters: “This benefits no one but ‘the people in charge’”

Despite Kiviat’s mealy-mouthed authoritarianism and feigned reasonableness in advocating such a system, Mundie’s proposal is little different to a similar system already considered by officials in Communist China to force bloggers to register their identities before they could post. At the time the idea was attacked by human rights advocates as an obvious ploy “by which the government could control information” and crack down on dissent.

Indeed, the proposal was deemed too severe and the Chinese government eventually backed down. So a system considered too authoritarian and too much of a threat to freedom in Communist China is seemingly just fine and dandy in the “land of the free,” according to Kiviat and her ilk.

We should require fascists to have licenses before they are allowed to propose their luney schemes. Free speech for everyone else.

How “we the people” allow our corporations to discredit the very ideals of freedom and democracy is beyond me. I am afraid I am lead to the conclusion that “we the people” is a nice idea, but mythical.

By they way, I have never made a smarter computer move than when I gave up on Windows entirely and went to Linux (debian distribution). What a wonderful operating system it is! Try it, you’ll like it.

For a great news portal, try http://schema-root.org .

Publi5, I have read your piece and find it extraordinarily misleading especially with regard to the issues I raised.

I did not say people would be willing to ceded ALL their anonymity in order to stay safe on line.

I stated that most people I spoke with would be willing to cede some privacy in order to stay safe. Before getting into most buildings in NY and NJ you are subjected to a fairly rigorous identification process. Before getting on planes, you are subjected to even more rigorous searching.

People, most people in general except of course the Terrorists for the most part, do not find this ‘intrusion’ excessive especially as it is clearly in their best interest.

Also, THERE IS IN REALITY NO PRIVACY ON LINE PER SE. The only people who get online and use several layers of anonymity to obscure their real identities are thieves, mostly.

For example, EVERYONE who posts a comment here has their IP addresses captured. Even children know that with an IP address you can find out almost everything you need to know about a person.

Your fundamental contention is patently flawed so I will not be going into the rest of what you have written, at least not right now.

For a very low price, you can find anyone who leaves ANY footprint at all online. Also, EVERYONE who logs on to the Internet is leaving clear prints.
Even public libraries are compelled to keep records of people who use their facilities to surf the web.

The “Amy Boyer law” was enacted because some lunatic got her information by paying a minuscule sum to some online agency (I think he paid $20.00) and then he found and slaughtered her.

If you use the “WHOIS ARIN” directory, a publicly available tool and use this tool to get some information on anyone who leaves enough footprints on line.

Here is an excerpt I found a while back written by some fellow on how people can break into computers steal information and clean their tracks.

“Legion” a software used to steal passwords and break into systems (is available to most n line criminals) automates the password finding in Net BIOS sessions. Legion scans multiple IP address ranges for windows shares and offers a manual dictionary (of passwords) as an attack tool.

L0phtCrack is a password auditing and recovery package distributed by “stake software”, which is now owned by Symantec. It performs Server Message Block (SMB)packet captures individual log in sessions. This tool also contains dictionary, brute force and hybrid attack capabilities.”
____

This is just a little information on theft of passwords and is the MOST basic sort, available online to EVERYONE who wants to use the massive amounts of information left behind by users of the web to obtain information on them.
___

People are fooled into thinking they are anonymous online because they log in and use different screen names and passwords however in reality, except those who use anonymity enablers like “Tor”, “Anonymizer” etc., no ordinary person is in reality surfing the web anonymously.

The issue then is, since people and their computers are easily located, viewed and compromised on the Internet, what can be done to keep them safe?

One of the things that can be done is to spread awareness on forums like this so that people do not delude themselves that they are safely surfing the web.

The government should provide safety in “real time” and “virtual time” because these are all entwined.
Lack of oversight is giving online slime balls and criminals who would ordinarily in real time be jailed, the impetus and ability to commit violent, vicious and heinous acts.

The web is a parallel world, the Internet is not some distant thing used for ancillary stuff. People use the web for most things they need in their day to day lives.

If our streets and neighborhoods are policed, the web should not be left to continue to devolve as this den for the depraved.

Respectfully yours,
LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

I just want to thank the Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Bilderberg Group, Tri-Lateral Commission and even the Queen of England for making this possible!

We are almost there!

Why create a system that takes away our freedom when we already have an IP address and MAC address to track people down if they do something nasty?

Or is the intent to take away our right to free speech?

Privacy and anonymity are inextricably linked to freedom and liberty as is the freedom of speech and expression! Leave it to aloof, elitist, globalist cretins like Ms. Kiviat and the diabolical jackals at Microsoft to assume by default that you and your New World Order ilk have any rights whatsoever to regulate or “license” internet use!

CITIZENS are fast becoming sick and tired of your tyrannical nonsense! Stay to the right, Ms. Kiviat because many of us will have no compunction about running your controlling little a$$ over on the Internet Super Highway!

Yes, and we could all get little white ponies and chocolates at bed time. For God’s sake, please use that thing resting on your neck before you jump to such visions of sugar plums.

Who gets this control? Who makes money on it? Once implemented, where does it stop? Do you have to get approval for political blogs or anti establishment writings? It’s amazing to me that you would be so willing to essentially through away your right to be left alone so that you would know how is nice or not. Perhaps with this new Global NetID you could report me because I offended your judgment in some way. Perhaps we should ban all arguments.. hell why stop there, lets just all stop thinking, and if we dare do so, let make sure that our trusted Governments know exactly what it is we are saying because they know best.

My dear friends, there has NEVER been a greater offensive on our rights and liberties than today. And it’s done using scare tactics and presumed threats. Its a soft infiltration into our homes with shit stories such as this one. Notice how this “news” article starts…

“I just went to a panel discussion about Internet security and let me tell you, it was scar-y. Between individual fraud, organized crime, corporate espionage and government spying, it’s an incredibly dangerous world out there, which, according to one panelist, is growing exponentially worse.”

So the set up is, you are scared, it’s bad, we can help, here is how, all your base are belong to us….

I’ve been personally “hacked” and my money stolen from my checking account. That is a threat that I am well aware of and am willing to deal with as “payment” if you will for the conveniences that I get from using online bill pay, checking etc. I have the choice to send in a check if I want but I don’t. But I’ll be damned if I want to give up my right to be left alone, and to say what I want, when I want it! And YOU ALL HAVE that right and should work vigorously to KEEP IT, not to throw it away so easily.

I know you’re yelling in your head, but that’s not the point of this! My friends, it NEVER starts out as a bad idea. But a wolf in sheep’s clothing still looks like a gentle cuddly animal until it’s time to attack. How hard is it to see that once the flood gates are opened, there is no turning back. How many historical examples do you need to see that tyranny creeps in slowly. It say’s, “don’t be afraid, we are here to help against the evils of man…” It’s how my Stalin did it, it’s how Hitler did it, and it’s working again on a global scale.

My advice, don’t be afraid, fight for your right, and don’t be fooled by this bullshit. Great men have fought for simple things. Great men gave us a constitution that is envied by all other nations. It’s your individual right to be left alone, to speak out, to respectfully disagree. Don’t squander it.

be careful

The case which led to the “Amy Boyer Law” got publicity because of the sheer tenacity of the murdered woman’s parents (most people do not vigorously follow through on abuse, stalking, rape and even murder when it is effected, enabled and completed through the use of technology because they do not know where or how to start of end the criminals run).

Information about ANYONE is out there and very very easy to obtain online, and if you are online, you are visible, usually vulnerable and very easy to track.

So in the light of the facts regarding online activities should the web not be subject real time action such as protection and review by law enforcement.
I will answer that; there is no reason whatsoever to pretend that the Internet is some anonymous surfing engine. EVERYONE– except criminals is visible and very easily traceable.

Here is the case of the Amy Boyer Murderer, Liam Youens. You can also read the murderers blog to see what happens when good people do nothing in the face of a real and obvious threat against someone else.

“Resmburg v. Docusearch”
“It’s actually obsene [sic] what you can find out about people on the Internet.”
—-Quote by Liam Youens, the man who used “Docusearch” to locate and kill Amy Boyer.

LM
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

This column is just another example of the mass media’s current war on the internet due to anger over revenue loss in a world where it can no longer compete. Shame on Time for pursuing this cowardly line of defense. Take pride in your company and re-learn to make money, or go ahead and fail without dragging everything good in the world down with you.

Lawyermommy,

If we can be so well tracked by IP address already, why do we need internet driver’s license?

As said before, the bank analogy that was used by the writer of the article is off-base.

I think you have fallen into the trap of spreading “Fear” to push an agenda. We must do this to protect bank accounts. We must do this to protect our data. (And the worse one) We must do this to protect our children.

How about people being better parents instead of just letting the TV and internet raise their kids for them? (Or using prescriptions of Ritalin.)

How about not opening files from complete strangers?

How about not sending money to a Nigerian Prince?

The line that really scares me from you. You said that you and people have spoken to you said you would cede some privacy for security.

Well….I think you as a lawyer, you should refresh yourself on a bit of Benjamin Franklin:

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

From your statements, I can see you are one lawyer that I will never employ.

Funny how lawyermommy posts with a pseudonym!

Perhaps we should alert the authorities so they may protect the innocent public from her hypocrisy? I’m sure she’d go willingly, you know, to protect the children.

Lambwolf, That name is funny.

Again, as I indicated earlier here, just like getting on airplanes and so on, the search measure is in place to flush out the criminals among us.
The ordinary person is surfing the web in full view. The criminals are not. A license would definitely make it easier for the authorities to track the not so adroit criminals online, and would also create a better trail to find those more hardened crooks.

Pedophiles track children using their phones and other technological means.

I cannot go into the other dribs and drabs you have written because the Internet is a PUBLIC place which is devoid of the most basic policing especially with respect to crimes against the PERSON…. Not Cybercrimes involving finances.

Crimes against the person are being increasingly effected via the web, telephone, webcams and all manner of ordinarily legitimate technology.

The “real time world” has crime and other related issues despite an advanced and well trained police force and numerous other arms of law enforcement.

The Internet is wild, unpoliced and without the most basic framework for tracking and prosecuting people who use the web for criminal purposes up to and including murder.

You think this is not a basis for people to have enough good sense to push for measures which will protect them and their families?

There was a recent case of two girls who were abducted by a computer adroit monster and his accomplices.

They were taken out of the country on forged passports. They would not have been found if one of the girls had not confided in one of her close friends regarding her online ‘buddies’.

These grown men had already started trafficking in the poor girls before they were found. The girls were being sexually molested and their pictures were being distributed among other Pedophiles.

I have met women who have been tracked by mad desperate men who use GPS tracking and other technologically enabled stalking means to track, follow and attempt to terrorize these women.

In one case, a stranger had posted a woman’s information on line and stated that she wanted someone to murder her. Someone did. A man went to her home and shot her.

If one person dies as a result of technology crimes, it is one person too many.

If one person is stalked and followed online by some technologically adroit coward, that is one criminal act too many.
Bugging any phone and using it to track someone else is a felony but MANY criminals can easily effect this using the IMSI catcher and so many other tools which constantly outwit law enforcement.

The fact is that we cannot police our lives in real time. There are times when law enforcement is needed. Much as we would like to think that we can tackle serial killers, most people cannot and these murderers can only be caught by law enforcement.

The Internet is a parallel world and the crimes committed against people on it are no different. We need a system of laws and checks, which could include incenses, to assist in tracking and managing this growing frontier of exploding and unfettered criminality and vile cowards who hide on line scurrying around violating innocent folks who are going about their daily lives.

I do not know about you but I want murderers. stalkers, rapists,and child molesters jailed. That they use these felons use technology these days to facilitate their crimes means that more measures should be in place to identify, prosecute and jail them.

The law and tools used to stop crime has to evolve to catch up with the times. Licenses might stem reactive responses to crime committed by online vagabonds.
Hmmmmmmmmm as for employing me??? Judging from what you have written here, I hope you are not in a position to employ anyone.
Your rush to judgment is silly. You cannot judge the sum total of a person’s capabilities by your one odd quote. There is far more to most individuals than their positions, experiences and views on ONE issue. Wowzers.

I wish you well.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

Oh my goodness. This is not good. You are threatening the writer of an article because you did not like what she wrote!!

Anyhow, just in case you did not realize those who attempt to control other people’s lives online are themselves controlled by those people. They follow them around because they are fearful, empty, scorned or a mix of all three… fearful, scorned and empty! Gosh.

Most cowards who hide on line to follow people around as they go about their day to day lives are pathetic and require sympathy because they are internally vacuous. What a wasted life they have!

You see, men who stay on line or hide their identities to enable them track innocent women and children are candidates for the penitentiary.
They are weak, afraid and plain simple cowards.

There is and African proverb which says that the man who thinks he is holding another person against the tree is himself trapped in that position.

So if you really do run around spending your life threatening writers online and flexing your “hide and cower” power because you are hidden, that is truly pathetic.

You sound sad, depraved and weak. Strength lies in taking responsibility not hiding in a vain effort to elicit some sort of regard??? Regard for crimes and threats?? People who threaten are scum, pathetic and pitiful. Sad, sad, sad.

I sincerely hope that Ms, Kiviat and other women who encounter such wild vile remarks DO NOT respond with a modicum of shaking fear to cowards who threaten and commit these verbal assaults against them and against other women, children and other innocents on and off line.

Anyone who writes like this is simply a sick desperate and misguided soul! Seriously, get a life. Gosh!!!

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

Hahaha… what a silly remark!

As I indicated here (on my other responses) WordPress and Time can easily track every legitimate poster on this site.

Law abiding citizens are not the target for regulation or laws regarding crime, criminals are the reason.
It is criminals who go to great lengths to obscure and spoof their IP addresses, change identities., claim identities, etc. These despicable little minded brutes and monkeys break into peoples phones, emails etc. They are a sick sad bunch of losers, criminals, pedophiles, stalkers, liars, thieves and all around plain Psychopaths. Technology fueled sociopaths.

Well, if YOU want to post your family name, address, photographs, eye color, height and everything else online, you can do so.

Just be aware that it is unsafe to do so and makes you a very easy target for violent online vagabonds who troll the web and phone lines seeking to ravage, rape and molest innocent people going about their daily lives.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

One think I can count on is the rise of anon in response of such an implementation as universal driver’s license. It won’t consist of just shouting from a mountain top…it would consist everything malicious those guys could think of to bring the system down.

I think having bank authenicators is a great idea. Your bank gives you an electronic device that generates a random signle use code, along with your typical user name and password.

Not only would hacker need your user name and password but would need to physically steal your electronic code generator.

Ms. Kiviat, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This article is so riddled with inaccuracies it’s ridiculous. Let’s just start with: “The anonymity that has come to be a core and cherished characteristic of the Internet didn’t exist in the beginning: it was obvious who was who.”

This ABSOLUTELY untrue. In fact, at the time the first web site was opened at CERN, it was almost impossible to determine who was who. First, people did not have individual ISP accounts. You could only get on the internet through an institution like a university. However, at that time you could dial up most univ. systems using a modem (on a non ESS phone line, providing very little ability to determine where the call was coming from), and you could connect to the internet without ANY user account whatsoever.

Also, what you think of as the web existed in a different form, called GOPHER, which had already amassed a large number of users. When the WWW became workable, all those users started switching over.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. What’s even more disturbing is that we have people like yourself who didn’t learn from the dark ages. Restricting access to information and interaction may be safer, but mankind has learned that the cost of such behavior is TOO great. Well, apparently not all of mankind has learned this. I suggest before you discuss issues that are clearly over your head, you read up on more fundamental intellectual concepts like enlightenment and gain the ability to comprehend what a paradox is and why modern western liberalism came about to begin with.

M. Kaney
San Luis Obispo, CA

This is about censorship, not protecting women and children from pyschos. Anyone who believes in the Constitution would be morally offended by such an attack. Those who believe it is some document created by slave owners and therefore is amendable at or for any cause would cherish this type of non-senscial solution.

Lawyermom would give up all your freedom to save her children. Not everyone thinks its a good idea to screen passengers in airports. Or appreciates giving the government the right to search your person, and personal belonging because there are few pyshcos in the world. In fact, most people think security check points are ridiculous and the under bomber proves these people are still capable of getting on planes despite all the descent people being searched and violated.

All great killers and brutal rulers would have loved to have a system to track the people and what they are saying.

If it is so easy to track someone, as she claims, can She, Time, or Microsoft find your information.

Answer: No, don’t believe me.
http://www.wikihow.com/Trace-an-IP-Address

Not without a court order and that is if they are lucky.
So yes, you are anonymous unless you are forced to log in to the internet through some system which is created to track individuals.

The truth will set you free lawyermommy. Life is tough and people do things that no one appreciates or likes, but give up your own freedom not mine;

I repeat; taking away the peoples freedom of speech rights is the goal of these cyber security movements.

Still Don’t believe me;
Read this article:
http://www.infowars.com/death-of-the-internet-censorship-bills-in-uk-australia-u-s-aim-to-block-undesirable-websites/

Then make up your own mind.

Oh one last thing Lawyermom: 5USCA sub 552a-Privacy Act. Read it.

This makes sense, if you want to do business on the internet, having credentials is totally sane thing to do. It will help me (as a consumer) know who is legit and give a way to have recourse in the event of an issue.

Everyone who gets online has an IP address so stating that unless a person is forced to sign into somewhere or some site in order for them to be tracked by criminal scum online is BLATANTLY false.

My foundation frequently informs the public about this sorts of deliberately misleading representation. You are not hidden whether you sign on to a site or not. You can be followed and located back to your home address

A simple example of software frequently used by crooks online is is “Spyanywhere”, a very easily obtainable online tool which allows you view any system activity and other user actions.

You can shut down, restart, freeze and browse the system.

Another software, “Email logger” logs all e-mails sent and received on a users system. The emails can be viewed by sender, recipient, subject and date.

Any IP address can be very easily found except for those of criminals and crooks who have to go to great measures to obscure who they are for fear of being hunted, found, prosecuted and jailed.
The reason for the existence of the law has never changed. It will and has always been to protect the innocent.

Most people online are not hidden. The laws which compel criminals to have verifiable identification is required because to date tracking regular folk is a breeze but like in real time tracking criminals is more challenging.

I have no interest in reading any nonsense about how being identified is going to squelch free speech because such an article is specious nonsense.

Everyone who logs on to this site can be easily found and tracked.
Anything you write can be easily traced back to you.

If anyone wanted to find all the people who visited this site, they would not even have to set any links or traps, all they would have to do is to get a log from this site.

Any move to quell free speech would already be massively on the way because as I have repeatedly stated here, it is easy to find regular folk online.
Those who hide behind layers of cover are the criminals who are being sought by law enforcement.

The Internet is a REAL and GROWING world.

Like other groups of human gathering and evolving worlds, there are and will always be criminals, sociopaths, predators, thieves and other slime of the earth within this community.

These thieves frequently, under the guise of free speech, oppose measures which would make the internet safer for the regular law abiding user.

Let me reiterate, if there was a move or need to squelch free speech as some “anti-tea party” clowns have suggested would happen if licenses are issued, then such a move would be FULLY BLOWN by now because the average person online can be tracked and found in a matter of seconds.
His phone calls at home and on the cell can be listened to and through the use of technology, anyone can even find such a persons relatives, wife and children online. It is quite easy.

Again, laws exist to protect the innocent.

The reactive response to ongoing and growing technology enabled crime can be reduced if licenses and other measures are put in place to stop criminals for whom technology has provided a new weapon for them to effect their horrific crimes.

Criminals belong in jail. We can work together to make sure they get and stay there.

Ciao!

LM

Lawyermommy,

Everything you mentioned in your reply to me, there are already laws on the books against such acts, correct? SO how is more laws really going to be a deterrent?

Every new law that is passed strips more liberty from us. People may find safety that we have public cameras. However, wouldn’t Hitler love this technology as well?

You mentioned those girls being sent out on forged passports. How having more “secured” internet would have stopped that. An organization that is capably of forging passports have the skills to get under aged girls out of the country by various means.

The reason why I would never hire you based on one comment is very simply. It clearly shows me that you do not have a philosophy of individual freedom or liberty thus I would never hire such a person.

Again, you bring up this needs to happy to protect our families. Funny how many times government has used fear tactic of this could happen to our children if we don’t pass this law or that law. Give government more power to protect our children. I have news for you..

It is the parents who need to protect our children not the government. Be a parent! Be responsible for them. Don’t look at the government or schools to raise your kids for you.

Be a good parent and monitor your children’s web activity.

The fact is.. Parents can’t always be their to protect their children. The first time your child get asked by a peer to have sex, alcohol, or drugs: you can’t do anything about this. It is up to how well you prepared your kids to handle these situations instead of relying on government laws to keep these things our of reach of our children. Like those laws really ever worked.

So how do you expect internet driver’s license to protect them as well. Simply, it won’t..

So be a parent!

I say enforce the laws we have and don’t waste time or steal people’s liberty by passing new ones.

Lambwolf, your name is hilarious

As I indicated, the entire transaction involving the girls was effected via the web from start to finish. Their home hard drive was compromised and the signatures of their parents stolen and used to forge the passports.

Almost ALL abduction, rape and molestation of children by sexual and other predators is now effected through the web. It is the preferred mode for ALL Predators, period!

There are NO laws that sufficiently target and enable the prosecution and incarceration of online scum who excel in the use of criminality to foist unimaginable and vile criminality against people.

You appear to have totally lost track of what you are writing and your preaching about being a parent sounds completely infantile.

You are stating the obvious issues which have been addressed and readdressed on various forums on basic parenting and the web. Your remarks are trite.

Sometimes, you cannot tell if your child is conversing with someone who has a picture representation for example as a little 17 year old Hispanic male, meanwhile, in reality he is an old thirty something year old Caucasian predator.

Many women I know and meet vigorously “police” their children but more legal oversight is needed to subject the web to a set of Internet specific protection and LAWS.

As for this hiring me as you keep referencing as some sort of acid test or to bolster your flawed contention, I doubt that someone like you is in a position to hire real intellectuals because you sound repetitive and for the most part, make little sense.

As I said before and it does bear repeating, the Internet is largely wild. Crimes against adults and children are growing at an EXPLOSIVE rate.

Laws are created to PROTECT the innocent and reveal the guilty. These laws which will do so in the technology arena are in the infant stages and for the most part, enforcing them is difficult because of the sheer breadth of the web.

As I stated earlier, (in another post here) Innocents are already easy to identify.
Those who are being targeted by law are LAW BREAKERS.

As I also stated earlier, prior to boarding a plane, YOU ARE CHECKED, as is your luggage etc. Is it a hassle? Yes.
However, most people would willingly subject themselves to such checks just to make their trips a little safer.
On line the case for safety and liberty is no different.

These loss of liberty hysteria is nonsense. It is as silly as the “pull the plug on grandma hysteria”..

Such contentions have no real basis in fact and is promoted by those, for the most part, who have more to gain by an unregulated Internet which enables then, these types of vile repugnant scum, target and violate the innocent and upright among us.

Your LIBERTY begins where mine ends.. that is what the law says and therefore, your criminal acts which deprive me of those liberties MUST be addressed by the law because THEY (those crimes) encroach on my rights.

Everyone is surfing the web in full view EXCEPT for the criminals who have numerous identities, criminal technology adroitness etc. These are the vagabonds the laws target.

We can defend ourselves to the best of our ability but when targeted, we need a coherent and effective system of laws which will assist in tracking and incarcerating cowardly stinking scumbags who use the web and technology for vicious criminal acts.

The so called liberties that are ceded like getting searched before boarding a plane are normal and expected in ensuring that the public is protected from hardened and violent criminals.

The Licenses will probably be a great first step towards tracking online vermin who target children and innocent adults alike.

I respectfully submit that your statements and repeated ‘entreaties’ are baseless and have no real effect in assisting to bring these depraved technology adroit charlatans to justice.

The LAW is the job of the legislature and its enforcement the job of law enforcement.

Parents at the rudimentary level can do what they should to safeguard their children (and are a first line of defense), however the present state of technology crimes and its explosion demands a more streamlined and cohesive system which will enable and facilitate an easier/ more vigorous hunt and prosecution of online criminality.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

Dear Lawyermommy,

What do you mean are no laws?

Um..

Kidnapping?
Rape?
Assault?
Fraud?

Probably another half of dozen could apply.

If such laws don’t stop this abuse now, so new laws will? I doubt it.

The government needs to focus on these laws instead of just passing new laws.

So you want to pass laws for every possible situation where a parent can’t protect their child? Good luck.

I also think you are off base on the whole airport security. The 9/11 terrorists managed to get visas into our country. The Underwear Bomber got a visa as well.

The airports handled security better before the TSA got nationalized by LAWS. Airports are motivated too provide a secure place for their business. This would be better than any government agency or laws.

So why don’t we have the same type of security for Hotels? Malls? These type of companies have hire private security.

Why did our Founding Fathers made it difficult for laws to be passed? They new each law that is passed is an erosion of liberty.

Yes, laws can be use to protect innocent, but those same laws can also be used to prosecute the innocent as well. This is a reality that you don’t seem to understand which again, is why I would never hire you.

This is what Thomas Jefferson warned us about over and over.

If someone is trying to break into your house, is it the police’s job to protect you?

Yes, they will if they can, but you can’t expect a police officer in front every house. You have to be able too defend and protect yourselves.

You brought that a child talking to a “person” claiming to be a Hispanic 17 year old, but could be a white child molester. (I love how you break things here into racial stereotypes)

So… your child wants to meet said 17 year old Hispanic… Just let them walk out the door and go meet him without talking directly to the kid’s parent?

hmmmm

Let see if you can respond without getting insulting.. I have yet to say anything insulting.

Lambwolf … its all in the name

First of all, the laws pertain to real time prosecutions. Most laws have not been amended to incorporate the technology component of crimes.

Technology has advanced ahead of the laws in the books. There has been insufficient training of law enforcement personnel and law makers. The result is a proliferation of hardened criminals surfing the web committed violent and vicious crimes and a dearth of laws which strongly address their acts.

Here is an example, if a woman is stalked online and then killed by her stalker, the laws deal for the most part with stalking as a real time crime and even in the cases when it can be shown that this woman was tracked and followed by GPS monitoring and that her phone was monitored and recorded by the criminal who murdered her, it is still challenging to bring these crimes together in court because technology enabled criminality has not been properly legistlated.

Crimes against the person online are still described in many quarters as “Cyber crimes” even though the victims are people and the effects of the crimes though not financial are measurable, tangible and real.
Online assaults have not been addressed properly in the law. The term used is “bullying” despite the fact that the viciousness used in cyber bullying situations meets the criteria of ASSAULT and not mere “bullying”. The state of the laws is not reflective of the state of technology crimes against the person!

As I indicated in an earlier post, tampering with Federal mail is an offense and punishable by jail time however, tampering with email is not treated as a crime of the same magnitude. Mail is mail and yet email has very little in the way of laws to deal with the abuse of same.

Aaaaah, you are trying to rope me into some discussion about stereotypes but I am a woman of color and of African origin nonetheless and very sensitive to categorizations. I provided the distinct races to show how different the individual the young girl was speaking with was in reality from the person she assumed she was speaking with!
I am in a bit of a rush but will be back with some more information on this leg.

Lastly, insulting? I would not consider hiring you for anything because I do not like the flow of your reasoning. You repeatedly state you will not hire me and thankfully, I would not hire you either because your posts are not well reasoned, fair?

I will be back.

Regards,
LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

Lawyermommy,

My comment about me not hiring you isn’t insulting, but it is to point out that based on your well written posts that you have a completely different philosophy regarding the role of government than I do. When I vote against a politician for the same reason, I don’t consider that’s insulting them.

However, your following quote I do find insulting.

“As for this hiring me as you keep referencing as some sort of acid test or to bolster your flawed contention, I doubt that someone like you is in a position to hire real intellectuals because you sound repetitive and for the most part, make little sense.”

SO… You are an intellectual because you earned a college degree and a law degree? Hey, some of the dumbest people I’ve met are lawyers. Sadly, lots of them end up in Washington.

Anyway back to the issues at hand…

Let’s say you get your way and an internet license is passed into law.

How do you fund it?

Of course, the most obvious answer is from the license fee. However, how much do we set the fee?
It can’t be too high to deny even the poorest people access. It has to be high enough to pay for the all the responsibility of this “task force” to do the job.

However, the federal government has a 12 trillion dollar debt.. President Obama’s new budget will add a trillion to that. The Federal Reserve has printed 9 trillion which we really don’t know what they did with those funds. So, the bill to the taxpayer is roughly 24 trillion dollars. So where is the funding for whatever budget needs that the license revenue doesn’t cover going to come from? (Which there will there will be some, there always is)

Another question…

How are going to make sure that this new license system is secure. Right now… A person with a scanner from a distance can read the RFID tag that is in the new passports with your personal information. Great Job, Government!

Also, What is your Constitutional Grounds for such a law?

The General Welfare Clause?

This clause has been abused by virtually every Congress and President. Here is what James Madison had to say about it. (You may know him.. Historians call him the ‘Father of the Constitution.’)

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison

Madison went on to say…

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Ok, what about the Commerce Clause? The Constitution says:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

The meaning of the word “regulate” has morphed over time to constrict, but in the view of the Founding Fathers it evolved out of the word “regular”. In other to words.. “to keep regular.”

The Founding Fathers’ concern was over tariffs between the states. Basically, the Founding Fathers viewed this as “Free Trade” agreement between the states.

This concept really changed under a really bad Supreme Court decision during FDR’s time: Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn grew wheat to feed his chickens. He was not selling it across state lines. However, the Government said it could regulate how much wheat he grew through the Commerce Clause. The FDR packed Supreme Court ruled in favor with the Government.

So the government could now tell people what they can grow and how much on their privately own land?

The Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Conventions were have never approved of this. This doesn’t fall under their expressed view of “limited government.”

Let me tell you a story…

Congress passed a bill and sent it to President James Madison. Madison thought the bill was a good idea, but he vetoed it anyway. He informed Congress that he didn’t feel the bill is Constitutional.

The asked him about the “General Welfare” clause. He said no it didn’t apply. They mentioned the “Commerce” clause. He still answered that it also didn’t apply.

He said they would have to pass an amendment to the Constitution before they could make such a bill law. He actually and the politicians in the past actually considered if bills were Constitutional.

They even once amended the Constitution to ban alcohol. If they thought then that an amendment was needed for that, what does the government do today that they would viewed also needed amending and not just a law that is passed?

Now Congress passes a bill that fits their agenda and hopes the Supreme Court rules in their favor regardless of its Constitutionality.

Anyway, guess what Madison vetoed?

A bill on road and canal building…

I would argue that the man referred as the “Father of the Constitution” would have a better understanding of it than the Supreme Court Justices who ruled on Wickard v. Filburn.

There are those who argue that the Constitution is an “Organic” document. This is a stupid idea. The Constitution is a CONTRACT. It does have means for it to be change if necessary. You are a lawyer… What would happen if you told a Judge that your clients don’t need to follow through on the contract because they viewed it as an “organic” document.

Since FDR’s time, the Government is now heavily involved in highway construction. However, if the States doesn’t do what the Federal Government wants.. they will cut those funds they already took from those states’ taxpayers. Isn’t that what the Mob did? That’s extortion right?

I know it seems I am rambling, but still this is very important. Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin all wrote articles for papers using PSEUDONYMS. Why? For they feared reprisals.

Jefferson even when he was Vice President under Adams. So this is why anonymity is so important on the web.

Lawyermommy, I can see you are passionate about this issue. I will commend you for that. I do believe one big problem in this country that people are not passionate enough.

I will concede that such a law that you want could be passed by the individual states, but I still will be leery of it.

Your GPS example, if you had it illegal to montor someone using GPS without their consent illegel, would it really have stopped this guy from murdering the victim? IF he was willing to break the law to murder someone, I doubt the GPS law would have stopped him.

What then? Ban the technology from the public? Yeah right! Somehow restrict the tech? This guy would still have found a way around that.

This guy was DETERMINED to commit a murder and he did. Any law you could pass in a means to protect the victim will restrict the liberty of those who are law abiding. Again, Franklin’s quote…

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

However, he did commit a murder and should be prosecuted in front of jury of his peers.

What do you define as an “online assault?” This is very dangerous grounds here. If an immature teen age boy calls a girl a “fat pig” on the internet, do we need to lock him up for it?

What about the cases in Pennsylvania and Florida where the Child Porn laws are actually being used against kids themselves? These laws are actually being used against the kids that they are “supposed” to protect!

Kids using their cell phones taking nude pictures of themselves and sending them to friends. These kids are being charged for creating and distributing child pornography! Are these district attorneys mad?????

However, I do feel this is great example where a type of law you want can be abused by the government. Exactly as Jefferson and Madison warned us about.

Lambwolf, Lambwolf, Lambwolf– Baa growl?? haha Hilarious name indeed!!

First of all Lambwolf, I consider your repeated reiterating that you will not hire me silly not insulting per se but down right absurd.
I doubt that you can afford to hire me and also I thought the matter was asked and answered in the sense that I certainly would NOT hire you either.

Why? I do not like the way you reason, it does not display much clarity, and I do not hire people who think in the square manner in which you have done here.
I prefer to hire employees who think widely, broadly and analytically in a crisp and upright way. You would certainly be a problematic employee and not worth bringing into my company.

I hope hiring chatter has been resolved. You will not hire me and I would never consider hiring you or anyone like you. I think it is not complex or complicated.

As for Lawyers in Washington being dumb hmmmm— my experience has shown that people who make such sweeping generalizations are themselves dim.

Anyway, if you have anymore comments on the matters above, it will be interesting to read.

However, I honestly do consider your contentions unreasonable and sincerely think your questions are downright strange.

For example you asked about the existence of the laws on the books in complete ignorance of the fact that technology crimes have over shot and “outrun” the laws in the books. The laws are woefully and notoriously slow in catching up with the law.
Some of the basest criminals I know employ your arguments to advocate for a lawless system which would enable them run even more rampant.

You are repeating the same contentions and using examples which do nothing to alter my initial premise.
Repetition and quotes to bolster the same points do little to disprove the valid statements I have made which hold true.

Do you pay for your SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER??? It is a form of identification which is managed by the government.
People are identifiable and identified for good cause.
The funding issue you raise is simply ridiculous. Again, as I indicated earlier, it is an argument I have heard from technology criminals, frequently.

Nothing else in your post is new or different from your repeated view that the government cannot do ANYTHING MORE EFFECTIVE TO PROTECT CITIZENS FROM THE GROWING SCOURGE OF TECHNOLOGY criminals. I view I think is ODD, to say the least.

As I said before, that view is fallacious and very flawed. Law enforcement is the JOB of the government and the laws have to be brought up to date to catch up with the technology enabled crimes in order to prosecute those criminals.

Lastly, regarding the woman who was murdered after being tracked by a hoodlum using GPS tracking, computer tracking, listening to her calls and other means to follow her around prior to killing her.

First, if law enforcement got better training they would have been able to identify the technology component of the crimes against that woman AND better prosecute the perpetrator for the crime of murder and criminal stalking as well as all the other acts he committed which led him to eventually slaughter of the victim.

My statement was regarding PROSECUTION.

Regarding investigation, I have found there are certain markers and pointers that clearly identify technology enabled stalking (as an example).

The perpetrators of those crimes are psychopaths for whom technology is a means to an end.
If the training of law enforcement officers encompassed training on being able to identify the traits of sociopaths who use technology to facilitate their crimes, then being able to protect victims would be much easier.

In another case where a woman was tracked by webcam by her ex-husband, she was not sexually assaulted by him because a technologically adroit detective was able to decipher his insane messages (written in predator lingo) to her, and he, the detective, recognized them as threats.

Fortunately, he was also able to determine that the information the maniac had about what occurred in her bedroom was not some occultic power as he claimed, but that that dweeb had remotely activated her WEBCAM AND WAS WATCHING HER IN HER ROOM DAY AFTER DAY.

If this technology adroit detective had not recognized the writing and the acts of this lunatic, then he would have carried out his threats.

In the TWENTY FIRST CENTURY, Women and children are targeted by technology adroit scum who use their knowledge to commit heinous crimes.

I am not interested in your litany of historical narrations on liberty, I am interested in how the encroachment upon these liberties by some criminal losers who are utilizing this loophole in the law can be stopped.

Law and law enforcement is slow in catching up with these vile despicable animals who patrol the web, listen to calls, steal lie and hide to avoid being caught and jailed.

There is massive information on the behavior of these Psychopaths and serial predators. The government needs to intervene to incorporate and update the technology portion of the information databases and increase training for law enforcement.

A lot has to be done to protect us (women and children). Women have to be forced to stop embracing the victim role which they are actively being encouraged to do by so many online and elsewhere .

Parents have to police their children effectively by getting proper and updated information on the modus operandi of these slime ball punks who target them and above all, law enforcement must become more involved in prosecuting and jailing these pathetic criminals who continue to commit vicious acts against law abiding citizens.

The Internet license is only one suggestion in a long line of measures that could be enforced to create a foundational basis for protecting citizens and jailing felons who to date operate with impunity.

Your responses are not robust. I hope you will have something different from your repeated and over extended “I want to be hidden” remarks.

*Smile*

Warm regards,

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

It’s frightfully sad that laywermommy has no clue the dangerousness of this proposal.

Robert Heinlein said it best of lawyermommy types:

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire…”

It’s pretty obvious in which camp lawyermommy resides. This is nothing more than a display of collectivism vs. individualism and lawyermommy is a collectivist control type.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
(speech to Parliament 1783) -William Pitt the Younger

“Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.”
John Stuart Mill

“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.”
Thomas Paine

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson

“If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual.”
Frank Herbert

“If you look at, say, FDR saying ‘the only thing you have to fear is fear itself,’ a kind of tacit counterpoint to that from the Bush administration after 9/11 was ‘the only thing you have to fear is not enough fear’ ”
Norman Solomon

Lawyermommy,

For one thing, I love the fact that in your posts that you have failed to get my handle correct once. Even after you have commented on how much you like it.

It isn’t Lambwolf, it is Lambowolf.

It is a mixture of my last name and wolf. I like wolves.

Anyway…

I have to wonder while you were in law school if you skipped the part that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I mentioned my points where this law would be Unconstitutional. I even asked you point where does the government have the right to pass such a law. As far as I can tell, this law would not fall under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

My quotes and comments stem from the men who created and developed the “Highest Law of the Land.” Your comments DO NOT follow the philosophy of liberty shared by many of founding fathers.

Not to my surprise, you just ignored this point. Why? Because you can’t justify your position on this point.

My comment about lawyers being dumb isn’t a sweeping generalization of my part. Considering how much I read of what our lawmakers in Congress are saying and doing. (Which most tend to be lawyers) They have no concept of the Constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect.

Recently, one congressman actually said he doesn’t take the Constitution into consideration when he votes.

I don’t deny that law enforcement is the role of government, but not necessarily law protection. You can’t rely on local police to protect us in EVERY possible situation.

Every statistic shows regardless if you live in a rural or urban environment, if you called 911 for a break in, the thief will break and most likely be gone by the time the police arrived. The law enforcement part in virtually all cases of crime happens after the crime is committed not before…

You brought up the social security number. BIG MISTAKE on your part. When Social Security was passed, it was promised that the only purpose of the number was strictly for use by Social Security. This promise was the only way this bill became law. We can see how government have kept their promise here.

Also speaking of Social Security, my point on funding is also very important. I asked you how you would fund such an endeavor by the government. This is ALWAYS the question to ask. You mentioned the Social Security number we all have as somehow magically this resolved the issue.

Funny, considering the Social Security Dept. is going broke and can’t possible pay off the debts obligations it has. So, I will ask you again, how is this new agency going to be funded considering that the government has roughly a 23 trillion dollar debt?

Also, if the quotes of Jefferson, Madison and Franklin mean little to you, I can only assume neither does personal liberty which is the foundation of the United States.

Here is an example of the problem with your view…

Bill Maher on his show once told this story…. Police arrived to a man’s house with a warrant to search for drugs. They suspected him to be a drug dealer. They found nothing, but did find a journal. They seized the journal in hopes to get information of his drug dealing business.

The journal had nothing in it about his drug business. However, he did write a sexual fantasy involving a 14 year old girl that lives in the neighborhood. They arrested him for child porn. Of course, they had to let him go, but the police in the mean time had hoped to find more evidence about his drug business.

Then Maher did something interesting….he brought a picture of a professional fashion model. The model was very pretty, hair done, makeup etc etc. Her blouse was unbuttoned all the way down without exposing anything.

She had her hips cocked to the side with her hand pulling up on one side of the skirt showing more leg.

Maher pointed out that this model was only 14. Maher’s point was this guy was being arrested for a fantasy he decided to write down while men in this society are being bombarded with such images.

I am sure we both would agree that a 14 year old should have not have been used for such a picture. However, my question to you is.. Should this guy be arrested for having such a fantasy? And should he have been released?

You also failed to comment about the cases in Florida and PA. involving the teens.

I’m really concerned about you. If historic references mean so little to you, I guess the old adage about those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it doesn’t apply to you.

I still find it interesting how you feel the need to insult me. All my comments attack your philosophy not you. I can from you posts determined what your view of government should be. I do believe you are capable to understand my own views on the subject. However, you assumptions about my lifestyle can’t really be determined by my posts. I never mentioned anything about my career or net worth.

I think I can safely assume I could afford you, considering I loaned money to my best friend who needed it for her divorce lawyer. He happened to be one of the best in her city.

I think it is safe to also assume that the last poster, Tippycanoe did find “clarity” in my post and found it “robust.”

However, Tippy, if I am wrong, by all means, correct me.

Lambwolf, Funny funny funnyname

Again, another sweeping generalization on your part. Because you paid for your friends divorce lawyer no matter where she lives what the lawyer, does NOT mean you can even begin afford me. You CANNOT.

With my background and experience, I would definitely charge an amount commensurate with same, however there is more to hiring me than money, ill-gotten, borrowed, legitimate or fantasy funds.
I am saying for me and some like me, it is not just money that gets our services. Again, I reiterate this time with absolute certainty, you CANNOT afford me.
To keep rehashing the point is delusional on your part and unproductive. It does not change what is!

I would not hire you either so I hope you feel better now knowing that you are not the sort of person I would spend any professional energy in recruiting.

As for “Tippy Canoe” and his agreement with your “points’.. these mean nothing to me. Who is he and why should his agreement with your point of view matter to me?? It does not.

As for insults. I am not insulting you, I am being expressive just as you are.

You said Lawyers were dumb, here is your specific quote
“SO… You are an intellectual because you earned a college degree and a law degree? Hey, some of the dumbest people I’ve met are lawyers. Sadly, lots of them end up in Washington.”

And I made a statement which holds true about people like you who call others dumb.. they themselves are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

You say the lawyers in Washington do not uphold the constitution and so that means them dumb? What does that say about your own mind– politics is not something premised on rationality, it is partisan and mostly self serving. Your statement relating their politicking to Intellect, speaks volumes about you.

I will not specifically address each point you have raised because It would be atrocious since they are the same point repeated over and over with no change. It is NOT robust in the least.

It all has one underlying premise, and that premise is that the LAW and LAW enforcement should stay out of Internet Regulation.

As I said before, that contention is not only FLAWED but sounds CRIMINAL.

If the police get to the crime when a crime is in progress or after the criminals leave SO>?>? The point is that ORDINARY CITIZENS cannot enforce the law.

Let me take you back to the core issue because your are off on a tangent which I am not willing to continue because it is not related to the foundational basis of this article.

The discourse is on Internet Licenses and I am for doing this in order to better track Low life thieves and felons who at this time patrol the web with impunity.

This measure and as many measures as possible which will create a credible foundation for the apprehension, prosecution and incarceration of offenders MUST be pursued.

Women and children are the main target of technology adroit felons and bastards who use the web for different heinous acts.

They hide themselves on line, steal identities, rob people, listen to calls, activate microphones as listening devices, track children and women, stalk and molest them… assault and violate them.

This criminal conduct today is rampant but hunting the perpetrators is made even more arduous by their ability to use technology to hide themselves.

I cannot address your PA and Florida scenarios because there will always be bad eggs in any line of work. These incidents cannot and do not obliterate the need for laws which protect children sexual Predators.

Lastly, I am loathe to engage your empty projections about funding and where it will come from. I do not want to describe this attempt to inject hystrionics into this embryonic debate as silly, but honestly that is how it clearly appears.

If something is important enough and is proven to secure the innocent lives of women and children, I am sure many law abiding citizens will work with their law makers to work out funding for this measure.

Technology criminals are the latest vermin to manipulate ordinarily legitimate technology tools for their vile and criminal acts and serious efforts should be put into stopping them and giving them long sentences in Federal jails.

These common criminals as it were operate almost unfettered because of the amorphous state of the law.
They have to be exposed, meticulously and methodically taken off the streets.

AS I indicated earlier. The Internet license is only ONE in a long list of measures which could be implemented to create a law enforcement infrastructure to assist in apprehending these pathetic and disgusting technology adroit vagabonds.

In addition, Women need to be provided PROPER advise about the web and technology criminals.

If targeted, women must NOT be asked to ignore or turn away but most be provided support and encouragement to hunt down those who commit these acts against them (WITH THE SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT).

Children who are confronted on line or whose calls are intercepted by low life stinking online bastards should be able to prosecute those felons under Federal laws and be able to secure lengthy jail sentences for them.

The Law and law enforcement exist to protect and defend law abiding citizens AND just because crass technology criminals/Reprobates are a fairly new dimension does not make them any less undesirable and dangerous. A Vagabond and criminal is the same no matter what his weapons of choice are!

You said you were concerned about me, I am not concerned about you and what you write here because they do not impact what I know to be true. Your keep quoting the constitution as though it does not exist to protect the rights of the citizens.
PS: I cannot say I appreciate your concern but it is yours to do with whatever to choose.

YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MINE BEGIN and all the quotes in the world about liberty which you have made are vacuous because they do not change the basis of my strong averments.

You keep on harping on ONE aspect of the constitution…. ignorning the fundamental fact that our Government is meant to defend and PROTECT US.

Technology criminals are running free and roaming with the feigned short lived bravado of usual “real time” criminals… these vile hoodlums need to be hunted, investigated, prosecuted and jailed. Innocents have to be protected from these animals.

Stronger enforcement and laws to address these matters, will shorten the lifespan of these low life scumbags and technology abusing crooks.

Laterss!

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

A good measuring tool on the level of desperation can be had by simply noting when and where one side of the argument starts using the children as a debate tactic. It isn’t the government’s job to protect your children. It is yours.

You aren’t debating, lawyermommy, you’re politicking. The framers of the United States Constitution knew too well the dangers of the actions of Congress and the power of legislation. It would do you well to study up on that before your right to free speech is forever rescinded, of course, for the children.

Shotgubn,

Innocent women and children are targeted by online and technology adroit vermin. The techniques used by these criminals is different but their targets are still the same-innocent women and children.

In my posts, I have referred to women numerous times and provided a more realistic option for them to hunt down and get these cowardly scum bag criminals, prosecuted and jailed.

Let me repeat, many women are told to run away from or ignore vile bastards who hide behind the cover of technology to commit violent acts.

Women are sometimes advised to ignore these cowardly scumbags BUT it is not a realistic approach. Cowards and vermin in real time do time (pun intended)… those in virtual time who use the same vicious techniques should do time as well.

Well, I am also a firm believer in natural justice- people who commit heinous crimes get their just dessert.
The Justice system is a tool that women and children should never stop using (in event that they are targeted by these common, desperate low lives)… and if it is any consolation for anyone who has been targeted by criminals, these crooks inevitably get their just recompense.

Sigh… Thank God, for good folks who work tirelessly to enforce and uphold the law. Justice, delayed or just plain late is almost always served if your work tirelessly to achieve it!

Ciao!

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

LawyerMommy,
To start off…
You said:
Most honest people I have spoken to are willing to cede some of their anonymity to stay SAFE.

Benjamin Franklin said:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Now let me explain this whole thing to you from the perspecitive of someone who has been involved in cybercrime in the past. No structure set up by the government will stop anything. Once a ‘verification’ system or ‘ID’ system is in place, people automatically assume its valid and trust it. Because of this, no one questions whether or not its actually fake. Think about your drivers license, when have you ever had to present it somewhere and they actually went through all 10 or so ways to tell if its legit or a fake? I’d be willing to bet never. The reason for this is simple, they are under the believe that since you have a license it must be correct because its ‘too hard’ or ‘not likely’ that its fake.
This is the very problem. People trust it because they are supposed to. For a person wishing to be concealed this is a gold mine. Because now, all we have to do is obtain this ‘verification’ and we’re set free. People wont question us because we have the ‘offical’ documentation.

Another thing to consider, Anyone could spend 10~15 minutes online and if trying could find the software thats available and videos on youtube and could learn to break into anyones wireless network with a very short period of time. If I gave you the information, even you could do it if you followed the steps. With it being so easy to break into a system and then act as an individual I can do whatever I want on that network and that innocent person would be blamed. And there really isnt any way to stop that. When the 802.11 protocol was designed (wireless protocol). It was believed to be secure. They soon found out it wasnt. So they fixed it, and then they found another problem. It’s been an evolution for over a decade now, and its still not secure. Every attempt that they make to ‘fix’ the problems leads to others. Its simply not possible to create a flawless system. Why, you might ask. Simple, because Humans are involved and we simply arent perfect. Simple coding errors, or lack of insight into how a system is built will always lead to failures.

This leads to an ultimate conclusion. Any system set up by a gov for cyberverification purposes will be broken, and when it does. Innocent people will be blamed for crimes they didnt commit. Its already happening right now. Innocents being charged with Child Pornograhy because a virus is on their system and making their computer act as a hub. (Yes many try this defense and loose, but it has been proven true in situations as well). Some of these people are in prison right now because the jury system believed that the so called ‘internet tracing’ that was used by the FBI is flawless.

For cybercriminals, this would be a dream come true. A way to do whatever they want and have other people take the fall for it because the ‘system’ will be beleived to be flawless.

Lastly, government oversight seems like a good idea when you trust the people in power. But a quick history lesson. In the Netherlands Pre WW2. The government felt it would be a good idea to make a database of all the citizens and their religions so the gov could ensure proper burial rights if a persons family wasnt reachable or alive. It seemed like a good idea, everyone was in favor of this idea. They saw all the good and didnt even think to consider ‘all’ the bad. Fast forward to years later when Hitler’s Germany invaded. All they had to do was walk into the gov buildings and get a list of where every Jewish person lived in the entirity of Holland. No one would have forseen that happening with that system, but it happened. While its easy to think up all the reasons why a system would be good, most people fail to think up all the reasons why it might be bad.

As a lawyer (which I assume you are by your name here), how would you feel trying to defend a client who is innocent of a crime, but the system doesnt give you anyway to prove their innocence? For example since you’ve mentioned about sex crimes, a family situation: Father takes pics of his kids while they are sleeping, bathing, etc without the children knowing and trades them online, but then gets scared he will get caught. So he loads them onto his wifes computer and then turns her in to the police. How would you defend this ‘victim’ when she’s now the one that the legal system says is the ‘criminal’. The facts are quite clear, the pics came from that IP when traded online, and they were found on her computer, and her husband found them and reported them because of his ‘total disgust’ over the material.

Returning to the point at hand here… A cybercriminal is going to find a way to break whatever system is put in place to verify. You simply CANNOT expect a criminal to not do something because its ‘illegal’. Yea it’ll be illegal to use someone elses credentials or to use someone elses network without persmission (already illegal, but it happens everday); but they will do it. Because it allows them to accomplish whatever they want. All this system would be doing, is putting the blame on innocents and giving them no way to defend themselves because the system is ‘believed’ to be flawless.

el506v,

First, what is your point?? WHAT IS YOUR OPTION, ignore these vagabonds?? Not rational.

I read your response and it does make fair reading HOWEVER most of your contentions are fatally flawed from a legal and social perspective.

I have dealt with CYBERSCUM, COWARDLY PUNKS and the most VICIOUS BASTARDS you can imagine.

Therefore, I have come to a considered and reasoned opinion that there are needed measures which can stop them or at least identify them and assist in prosecuting them. No matter what manner of tool they use (in this case technology)…. they are still commom low life criminals! Technology might be glamorized but these scum are still what they are crooks, despicable vomit of a sick snake. Disgusting mistakes of humanity. Sociopaths, serial criminals, VERMIN!

When I return to this post, I will go into an indepth analysis of your contentions which though transparently flawed, merit some response.

Your quotes about Franklin were made in a vacuum.
I can relate it differently to the situation at hand in an absolutely cogent manner.

BTW, something to note is that technology criminals are the vilest and lowest types of fiends that currently operate in the criminal realm.

Many of these bastards are fathers, workers and other desperate worms who work hard night and day not to get caught.

Their lives, despite what they might represent to those they target,are awful and without peace.

Thieves are ALWAYS living with the knowledge that their time in criminality is finite, no matter the bravado they try to pass off. The law shows different. They hide because they are cowards who know the consequences of breaking Federal law. They are nobody’s because they hide and sneak around. They should engender no fear or anger just scorn and a determination to work with our law makers to stop them cold!

Technology criminals (cowardly slimy stinking worms) are no different from other criminals who have preceeded them. They cannot outwit law enforcement and the general public “ad infiniti”. That is not what we see in the law.

Many of these bastards break Federal wiretaping laws with impunity because the laws are not in place to hunt them fully and incacertate them.

It is absurd that their efforts and attempts to spread their pathetic fear only works with those who are uninformed about the antics of these zeros.

They track, listen to calls and employ and myriad of the most vicious and pernicious wicked tactics to ensare and sometimes violently and malevolently destroy the lives of poor innocent women.

The motives of these felons is to frighten children and women, however, knowledge of these low life scum will help to route them.

They are cowards. Driven by their empty lives to seek money at all costs and in the process commit vicious crimes against people. The cowards are themselves fearful. Criminals never live fully. despite the outward attemots by many to seen fulfilled, they live horribly, mentally, spiritualy and otherwise. If your were engaged in hiding and fiollowing around innocents to make sure they cannot identify you, that is a pretty ROTTEN life

The process for capturing criminals is not perfect, but IGNORING them and not launching a series of multifacted attacks against these idiots is NOT POSSIBLE.

Let us not forget that their use of technology does not change who or what they are– they are scum bag CRIMINALS, who like others of their sort spend a huge chunk of their time working on not getting caught.

I have more to write from a socio legal perspective and will debunk the contentions of el5v06b. Your perspective is wrong and your points on the issuelack foundational, social and legal basis.

I will be back.

I wish you well, very well

Regards,
LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

el506v,

“First, what is your point?? WHAT IS YOUR OPTION, ignore these vagabonds?? Not rational.”
I never said to ignore them, I simply said to try to create a system that is being talked about will do nothing to stop those that are technically sophisiticated. What is the solution, to be honest, I havent any idea. I’m wasnt commenting to tell you ‘how’ it should be done. I wanted to point out how a cybercriminal would view a system like this. Because this is exactly how I would have viewed a system like this had it been in place, prior in my life. Everyone so far has been commenting from the aspect of an average citizen, I felt that an opinion from ‘the other side’ might enlighten some people into the mindset of a person that they dont know.

“I have dealt with CYBERSCUM, COWARDLY PUNKS and the most VICIOUS BASTARDS you can imagine.”
For a laywer, you certianly are not approaching this topic with a calm and level head. While I understand the place of passion in the legal process, your overly passionate approach makes me question you. Calling cybercriminals ‘vicious bastards’? Seriously. People who kidnap and rape children are vicious bastards. People who physicaly abuse/kill someone else are vicious bastards. A person who steals credit cards numbers (for example) is hardly a vicious bastard. Cruel, yes. Selfish, no doubt. But a vicious bastard? Hardly.

“Therefore, I have come to a considered and reasoned opinion that there are needed measures which can stop them or at least identify them and assist in prosecuting them. No matter what manner of tool they use (in this case technology)…. they are still commom low life criminals! Technology might be glamorized but these scum are still what they are crooks, despicable vomit of a sick snake. Disgusting mistakes of humanity. Sociopaths, serial criminals, VERMIN!”
Again whats with the passionate ouburst of ‘VERMIN’? Do you talk that way in court? Do you speak in court as if you were tying to incite a mob into a rage? That asside, I think its very important to make a distinction here between two types of criminals. Those that ‘use’ computers in the commision of their crime. And those whose crime can only happen on a computer. A rapist, child molestor, etc may in fact use a computer to solicit children but dont glamorize them by calling them ‘cybercriminals’. They arent. They are simply using a computer. In contrast, true cyber criminals like what I used to be. (heavy emphasis on the ‘used to be’) do not fall into the same catagory as a child pornographer. Im not trying to say we arent criminals and that we dont deserver to be punished (as I was), but dont lump us into the same catagory as a hands on violent criminal. There is a reason there is a distinction between white collar crime and blue collar crime. Yes both are criminals and both need to be dealt with, but the smear campaign that you appear to be on, is somewhat immature for someone who claims to be in the legal profession.

“BTW, something to note is that technology criminals are the vilest and lowest types of fiends that currently operate in the criminal realm.”
So according to you, someone who commits wire fraud or breaks into a corporate computer to steal Intellectual property is more vile than a person who gains pleasure from raping and killing little children? Are you kidding me?

“Technology criminals (cowardly slimy stinking worms) are no different from other criminals who have preceeded them. They cannot outwit law enforcement and the general public “ad infiniti”. That is not what we see in the law.”
I’m going to ignore the attempted smear again, and point out that you are right. Cyber Criminals are indeed criminals. However, there are already thousands of laws on the books, and none of those stops anyone from doing anything. Laws dont stop crime, they just enable society to punish someone when they are caught. So the point isnt to make new laws, its to get better at catching people. And cyber criminals could be more eaisly caught if the government could compete with the private sector. Right now, a person who is established in the cyber security field can get a job starting out at 120K a year in the private sector… for government they’d start out in the 50K range. When there is such a disparity, government wont be able to adequately respond to cybercrime. The government simply cannot attract the top talent. Until the government is willing to put down the money to fight cybercrime nothing will change. The FBI’s budget last year was around 40 million dollars for their entire division that deals with crimes against chilren. 40 million dollars, thats it. Thats horrible. With 80 million children in this country our government only cares to spend the average of 50 cents per child!? The federal goverment spends hundreds of millions each year protecting wildlife species all around the country (and I do think we need to protect nature), but why are we spending so much more than we do on our own children?

“Many of these bastards break Federal wiretaping laws with impunity because the laws are not in place to hunt them fully and incacertate them.”
In fact, I am not a bastard. My parents were happily married before I was born and remain married to this day. And you’re wrong, every thing I did when I was a cyber criminal there was a law for. Laws not existing wasnt the problem. The laws were there to convict me and incarcerate me. The problem for the government was that they didnt even know I was doing anything because of the manpower shortage the FBI has. The country doesnt need more laws, we need more men to enforce them.

“They track, listen to calls and employ and myriad of the most vicious and pernicious wicked tactics to ensare and sometimes violently and malevolently destroy the lives of poor innocent women.”
Again, you seem to be talking about another type of criminal. Not one of my crimes was against a woman. A true cyber criminal would not be targeting a women to destroy her life. I think you are again calling people who use a computer in their crime ‘cyber criminals’. This would be like calling someone who ‘used’ a phone in the commission of their crime as someone who was involved in wire fraud. You mention that we shouldnt glamorize cyber crime and cyber criminals. Then stop calling these people something they arent.

“The motives of these felons is to frighten children and women, however, knowledge of these low life scum will help to route them.”
Again, a true cyber criminal doesnt target and women and children and we certainly dont try to frighten them. What you are speaking of is the age old ‘thug’. Just because a thug may use a computer to commit a crime doesnt make him a cyber criminal. Please call a thug a thug. Dont call him a cyber criminal.

“They are cowards. Driven by their empty lives to seek money at all costs and in the process commit vicious crimes against people. The cowards are themselves fearful. Criminals never live fully. despite the outward attemots by many to seen fulfilled, they live horribly, mentally, spiritualy and otherwise. If your were engaged in hiding and fiollowing around innocents to make sure they cannot identify you, that is a pretty ROTTEN life”
Those are amazingly strong words. And in my opinion they wreak of bias. Who are you to claim that me or any other cyber criminal has not ‘lived’ Who are you to tell me how I felt about my life and my mental and spiritual state? You know nothing about me, how on earth can you be arrogant enough to sit there and try to tell me how my life is without knowing a thing about me? Do you know anything about my spiritual state? Do you know about my spiritual believes? You do not, so please do not make claims on my spiritual condition.

“The process for capturing criminals is not perfect, but IGNORING them and not launching a series of multifacted attacks against these idiots is NOT POSSIBLE.”
I’m not advocating that we ignore them. But making bad laws isnt going to help either. And if you had read what I wrote before you would have realized that I was trying to explain to you that the laws that you seem to be asking for, would infact give a cyber criminal like myself MORE security and would make it harder for me to be caught. And in the process innocent people would be blamed for our actions.

“I have more to write from a socio legal perspective and will debunk the contentions of el5v06b. Your perspective is wrong and your points on the issuelack foundational, social and legal basis.”
So far you have not addressed the simple point that I was making that no system that is ever put in place is flawless, and will work as you think it will work. I believe that this is because you have no reply to it. Its a simple fact. If you’d check with US-CERT’s NVC (http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search) and look for the amount of software vulnerabilities that have been found, you’d find tons of software/computer systems that were believed to be secure, and were proven faulty. over 40,000 are listed. And this does not count the problems that either havent been reported yet OR havent been discovered yet. The average number of exploits found each year ranges from 5 to 8 thousand within the past few years and it has been steadly increasing. You cant create a flawless system, and because of that the true cyber criminals (not thugs to just use a computer) will use those flaws to their ends so they remain protected.
And also, how is my perspective wrong? Were/are you a cyber criminal? Do you know how we think? Have you personally engaged in this behavior? How can you be so arrogant to claim that what I know is wrong when you are not me, and you dont know what I do? If you wish to prove me wrong about my claims of insecurity, please find me a secure computer system that has not been compromised.

“I will be back. I wish you well, very well”
Thanks, I wish you well also. I am willing to continue this discussion if you would like, however I ask that you do not engage in a smear campaign. As a lawyer (if thats true), your words and experiences carry their own weight. You dont need to stoop down to the level of someone shouting on a soapbox on the street corner. I will respect your words at face value, brandishing them makes you appear non professional. And in the discussion we are having, I believe that people (and myself) will be more willing to hear out a professionaly laid out points instead of shaking the pitch fork in the sky trying to rial up a mob.

Lastly, I wish to point out that the very verification system that is being spoken about here is in direct violation of the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution. As the Supreme court has ruled, not only is free speech protected, but anonymous free speech is protected as well. (cases below if you wish to look them up) This has been extended to the internet multiple times, and even to people who have been convicted of sex crimes. If the government is able to verify who said what as this verification system would impost, anonymous free speech is gone online. Our countries own revolution depended on the ability for people to speak about their ideas anonymously so that those ideas could be spread without retribution from the Crown.
You are advocating the loss of free speech so that we can catch criminals with greater ease. Which comes directly back to the quote made by Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
I wasnt making a comment in a ‘vacuum’ as you state.

Respectfully,
el506v

Case Law regarding Anon Free Speech and Anon Free Speech Online:
USSC – McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
USSC Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton
USDC – Utah Northern Division John Doe vs Mark Shurtleff
Dominick v. MySpace
Manalapan v. Moskovitz
Fix Wilson Yard v. City of Chicago
USA Technologies v. Stokklerk
Doe v. 2TheMart.com
First Cash v. John Doe
E. Van Cullens v. John Doe
Doe v. Cahill

el506v,

My comments are and will continue to be passionate. It has factual basis which evokes my righteous anger.

I will engage you in discourse but find it rather revolting to read that you were or or are a CRIMINAL.

Take away the term Technology from criminal and that is what you are or were. It is beyond disgusting. I am sure many who read your post will feel sickened you are still free.

Your admission of your criminal past or present disgusts and revolts me. I find criminals like who have not served time for their acts are, revolting and disgusting.

Your continued freedom is wrong in every way and I hope you do jail time for the crimes which you say that you once committed.

You and everyone like you who has committed crimes SHOULD be jailed. That is what the Criminal Justice System exists for… to deter, punish and protect society from those of your ilk.

However, despite my complete disdain and disgust for criminals who have not done time and others of your ilk, if an exchange with you on this forum will shed some light to the readers of this page (who hopefully will filter through any criminal posturing you might provide).. then it will be a worthwhile endeavor.

At least people can see now that there are criminals (even those who claim to be reformed) and otherwise patrolling the web, phone lines, computers and elsewhere arguing for their freedom to continue their acts, stating their need for free rein under many different emm pretexts.

Hmmm…..Let us assume for one minute that you are still a criminal. Most crooks/criminals never change. They might take pauses but until they are prosecuted and incarcerated, most are like addicts. You never really find one who if his own accord decides to give up the vile life they live.

Well, that being said, as a criminal you are just ONE TYPE OF THOSE OF YOUR ILK. You might feel so entrenched in the system that you feel you will not get caught, but ultimately most like you do. However, there are other LESS HARDENED CROOKS who will be deterred and stopped by this first step of INTERNET licenses.

Also, I think it is a most amusing description to use the term “Technically sophisticated” for these common low life criminals whose weapon of choice is technology.

They are not SOPHISTICATED! People like you are (were) criminally adroit in their weapon of choice.

Some Crimes are committed using weapons. The type of weapon does not arrogate any sort of sophistication to the felon.
A criminal is a mere individual who elects to BREAK THE LAWS OF THE LAND. He hides to avoid detection and prosecution. He is a common felon like his peers who rape and rob corner stores. They are violent law breakers who should be prosecuted and jailed.

A ferocious scumbag who uses an Ozzie to kill someone or a vile miscreant who poisons his victims using hard to detect poisons is not sophisticated.
A technology criminal who steals identities, robs families, rapes women and children, stalks them, listens to their calls in order to trail them is no different from his fellow miscreants.

He is criminally adroit vermin, “sophistication” is an atrociously improper descriptions for the crimes you have committed and which others like you continue to commit.

Jailing you and others like you will provide a needed deterrent, as I posited in an earlier comment here.

Honestly, I have read some of the other things you have written including the fact that you have parents and so are not a bastard etc. I do not know if these remarks are simply your efforts at infusing some silly and unrelated nonsense to something evidently serious, but it fails to humor me and I am sure will not humor right thinking folk. Bastard??? This refers to VILE CRIMINALS and VERMIN who prey on innocent women and children.

This is the definition of bastard from Dictionary.com
“ anything spurious, inferior, or varying from standard . A person regarded with contempt, hatred, pity, resentment etc.
Suitable description for criminals.

You aver that you were not a Pornographer, Child Molester, Stalker of women, Rapist?? Are (were) you a Thief, Liar, Cheater etc???? Well, maybe you were a crook who STOLE and allegedly did not RAPE, MOLEST or STALK as is usual with concealed online and other technology adroit VERMIN but VERY MANY of your comrades are well vest in the art of Cyberpornography, Child kidnapping, Rape, MOLESTATION, SEXUAL DEVIANCE, MURDER STALKING of women and children, Stealing, theft of personal and intellectual property etc. etc.

Rape, Sodomy, Stalking, Identity theft, Robberies, Stealing, Criminal misrepresentations, Molestation, Menacing and all manner of Criminality have EXPLODED with the development of technology.

The Internet license is a good first step which if used with other dynamic legal steps will help stem this growing underbelly of technology.

I have studied and still study criminal conduct in general. Infact, I spent a considerable number of years studying husbands and wives who worked together to commit heinous crimes.

I also studied the web, the explosion of technology against the person and the caliber and characters of the perpetrators.

These criminals no matter the external bravado many seek to portray always know that they will be called to account for their crimes.

Many times, when you read criminal cases (in advanced Criminal Law), even for fugitives who are on the Lam (like most online Predators and Scum are—with their hiding and weaving to avoid detection)
always await the inevitable knock when they are called to account for their crimes against others.

Murderers, kidnappers, thieves and those who use the web to stalk, molest, steal and kill fall into that category.

They do not live whole lives because they are steeped in the morass they have created.

In every case, sometimes, you may find some low life CROOK who claims they live happy but research has repeatedly shown this to be a farce.
Most of these vagabonds look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives, and thankfully the passage of time always leads to more ways to identify, prosecute and jail these disgusting FIENDS.

Lastly, you make your quotes in a vacuum.

I will be back to discus it further. However, I will just add this to your litany or references to Benjamin Frankin.

The basis of the law is that one person’s rights end where that of another person begins. When another person criminally intrudes into the life of another such conduct is a crime and has robbed that other individual of his rights.

The law in those instances has to be able to proceed INTO the lives of the individual etc. whose rights have been violated, in order to address the injustice.

The law can only be provided access if there are certain processes in place to enable a seamless examination of these acts of violent crime and loss of rights foisted against another individual.

ALL individuals are subject to the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law in the case of Internet and Technology based criminality like those of Real Time crimes requires that at some point, there of necessity has to be a means to identify and investigate the violation and abuse of the Rights of law abiding folk by psychopaths and other law breakers.

There has to be a system through which law enforcement can seamlessly effect the investigation and identification of these felons. The seamless operation of the law sometimes requires some access into our rights in order that those same RIGHTS BE PRESERVED.

In Real time if you drive an automobile, you are identifiable and traceable. This occurs for a variety of reasons. In registering your car with the state for you to be able to use it… there are a myriad of legal reasons for it.

One of the issues is that each person who owns a vehicle has rights and responsibilities attached to the ownership. In event of an accident or theft… law enforcement has tools that will enable a more seamless investigation of such events. The Internet has no such checks and balances.

Your claim is that adroit technology felons will not be caught by licensing.. well the purpose of the law is not only to catch and punish but also to DETER criminality.

Some people will be deterred.

Child pornography was not as rampant as it is today because the complexity involved in getting into that “trade” was daunting to many.

Today, the Internet makes child pornography just a click away.

Stalking of women and children was also not as rampant.

Today, a woman’s cellphone can be used to track her and the microphone activated to violate her privacy. Women can easily be tracked and murdered by sociopaths because technology has made it easier.

Deterrents to the ease with which these crimes are committed must be implemented.

As for the hardened criminals (which it seems you claim that you “were”) who continue to operate with impunity in the erroneous belief that technology adroit criminals have a long run… are misguided because that security is false. The finite run of criminals like you (in your past) can be historically supported over and over.

Through out the course of history, the manner, tools and style for committing crime changes and evolves… Criminals who use the more current methods get caught.

The Justice system and our social fabric is an ever evolving system which eventually hangs and strangles these ANIMALS.
They do get stopped, prosecuted and jailed some even face the death penalty.

We really need more awareness in the public about technology criminals and a public outcry for a swifter capture and prosecution of these cowardly scum bags who cower and hide under the cover and anonymity of technology to commit crime.

Sincerely and Strongly,

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

“My comments are and will continue to be passionate. It has factual basis which evokes my righteous anger.”

Then would you please state some facts. All you have engaged in is a name calling tirade in which you make grandeous claims that cybercriminals rape and stalk women. I see the links on your blog. And yes a woman was stalked online. Yes that is a horrible and terrible act. But one incident does not mean that it is happening on a massive scale. And if you are worried about the ease at which you can track someone now; what do you think will happen when this ‘verification system’ that you desire is put in place, and criminals gain access to it? The amount and severity of stalking that could take place then is unimaginable. If such a system were created, you can count on the fact that it would become target #1 for cyber criminals.

“Take away the term Technology from criminal and that is what you are or were. It is beyond disgusting. I am sure many who read your post will feel sickened you are still free.
Your admission of your criminal past or present disgusts and revolts me. I find criminals like who have not served time for their acts are, revolting and disgusting.
Your continued freedom is wrong in every way and I hope you do jail time for the crimes which you say that you once committed.
You and everyone like you who has committed crimes SHOULD be jailed. That is what the Criminal Justice System exists for… to deter, punish and protect society from those of your ilk.”

Why are you assuming that I have not served my time? Why are you continuing to assume things about me that you know nothing about and have not bothered to ask? You claim to have a “factual basis” for your claims, yet what facts do you know about me which you are basing these claims on? In fact. NONE.
So I’ll give you some facts. That way you have something factual to smear me with.
I was raised in a upper-middle class family. I graduated from a private school and went on to an Ivy League university and graduated from there. I continued in my education in post graduate school. I was unable to finish post-grad school because of my conviction. I never made a conscious decision to become a criminal. In fact it was a series of small and seemingly insignificant steps. However in time I found myself in a position that I would have never been in had I had to make a single decision to do that. I realized that I needed to get out before I wound up getting involved further involved in things. So I went turned myself in at the closest FBI division. Since I have been convicted, sentenced, incarcerated for several years in a Federal Prison, released, and completed my term of Federal Supervised Release. For being a ‘criminal’, I have a very amicable relationship with law enforcement. In fact, once a month I and the FBI agent who arrested me get together for breakfast. I now own my own security consulting firm, and contribute positively to my community.
Those are the facts, Now base your claims on those. Please respect yourself and your position enough to know the facts before you start making claims. Making claims on false or made up facts, as you have done regarding me, only make your argument look weak.

“Also, I think it is a most amusing description to use the term “Technically sophisticated” for these common low life criminals whose weapon of choice is technology.”

I am not describing thugs who use a computer as technically sophisticated. You are the one lumping someone who uses a computer into the same catagory as all cyber criminals.

“A technology criminal who steals identities, robs families, rapes women and children, stalks them, listens to their calls in order to trail them is no different from his fellow miscreants.”

Once again you are attempting a smear campaign. I have never stolen an identity, I ahve never robed a family, I have never raped women and children, and I have never stalked them. Would you PLEASE stop making claims that this is what “technology criminals” do. Just because ‘some’ criminals do something, does not mean ‘all’ criminals do. By using your own logic with a claim you made:”I spent a considerable number of years studying husbands and wives who worked together to commit heinous crimes.” Well if ‘some’ husbands and wives worked together to commit heinous crimes, Per your own logic, ‘ALL’ husbands and wives work together to commit heinous crimes.
When you make claims like this, you do nothing but discredit your own position.

“Honestly, I have read some of the other things you have written including the fact that you have parents and so are not a bastard etc. I do not know if these remarks are simply your efforts at infusing some silly and unrelated nonsense to something evidently serious, but it fails to humor me and I am sure will not humor right thinking folk. Bastard??? This refers to VILE CRIMINALS and VERMIN who prey on innocent women and children. This is the definition of bastard from Dictionary.com
“ anything spurious, inferior, or varying from standard . A person regarded with contempt, hatred, pity, resentment etc.
Suitable description for criminals.”

You were the one calling me names and calling me a bastard. I also find it ironic that you state the dictionary.com defination. Considering that you state the 3rd defintion of the word. The 1st defination, and the most commonly excepted defination of the word is listed as well. “1. a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.” In case you were unaware, but the definations are listed in the dictionary based on the most common usage to the least. Ignoring the primation defination shows that you are picking and choosing the details you wish to base your claims on.
You’re doing yourself a disservice when you jump on the 3rd defination of the word and attempt to disregard the primary meaning of the word. In case anyone else wishes to read the definations for themselves: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bastard

“In Real time if you drive an automobile, you are identifiable and traceable. This occurs for a variety of reasons. In registering your car with the state for you to be able to use it… there are a myriad of legal reasons for it.”

That is not true. You are identifiable, but you are not traceable. There is no log of where your car has been. There is no way for the authorities to say, you’re car was here, so you must have been as well. They may infer it, but thats hardly an immutable fact.

“Sincerely and Strongly,”

I have no doubt on the strength of your feelings, but I do doubt their sincerety

If you wish to have an educated discourse I am more than willing to do so. However you have yet to address any of the real issues I have raised. I asked you about finding a flawless system. You have not.
I commented on how what you are adovacting is a violation of the US Constitution. You conveniently ignored this as well. I find this completely offensive. That you, a lawyer, a ward of the court. Someone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution, is in favor of something that would violiate one of its most basic principles. And that me, the ‘vile criminal’ as you call me; is the one who is stating that we need to follow the supreme law of the land. Its ironic that the person charged with defending the law wants to violated it, while the person who had violated it is advocating dedication and adherence to the law.

You stated “I am sure many who read your post will feel sickened you are still free.”
I myself am not arrogant enough to make claims about how someone else will feel. I will only state my feelings and opinions. I will not make claims on how others will feel out of respect for them and their own individual opinions and feelings. However if we are to discuss the matters of others views on our discussion; then its important to point out what they will see, based on our words alone.
Person 1 – making statments and asking questions in an attempt to create a dialog about the issue at hand.
Person 2 – completely ignoring those issues, and instead resorting to name calling and making false claims about Person 1 which are based on no evidence other than internal biases.

If you wish to discuss facts, I am willing to do so. However if all you desire to do is engage in Ad Hominem abusive, then there really is no reason for us to continue. In case you are not aware of that term, I’ll define if for you.
Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

This is exactly what you have been doing.

I raise an issue about constitutionality.
You respond my slandering me, calling me vile and completely avoiding the issue of discussion.

I explain my comments as coming from a person who was involved in cybercrime thus showing my ability to discuss this issue from that perspective.
You respond by telling me that life a horrible mental and spiritual life.

I comment on that any system that you attempt to create to be infallible, will in fact be faulty.
You respond by calling me a bastard.

I ask you to find a secure system that your ‘verification system’ could be modeled on.
You respond by making claims about how I ‘allegedly’ havent raped anyone. Thus inferring that you believe I have.

If you are unable to carry an intelligent and level headed discussion on this issue without resorting to personal attacks, then there really is no point for us to continue. I also find it somewhat ironic that you make these claims while hiding behind a pseudonym. You the person who is adovating absolute transparency, is speaking while hiding her own identity. Would you make these arrogant claims to a stranger on the street that you know nothing about? No you would not, because you would not know if they would physically attack you. However online you feel free to make any claim you wish because you know you are ‘free from retaliation’. How is this any different than the criminals which you say hide behind anonymity so that they are not held accountable for their actions?

Lastly, and I’ve saved this for the end because if you take nothing else from my comment, I hope you take this.
“Most crooks/criminals never change. They might take pauses but until they are prosecuted and incarcerated, most are like addicts. You never really find one who if his own accord decides to give up the vile life they live.”

You bashed me ealier in your writing stating that I live a ‘horrible mental, spiritual life”. I ask you, how can you claim to live a positive spiritual live, when you are disregarding the fact that a person can change and get better. One of the primary tennants of every major religion is the bettering of ones self. If you do not believe a person can change or that they can get better; how can you claim to have any spiritual life?
You make comments in your blog (which yes I have read by the way) about God’s Grace, yet you seem to disregard that a person can better themselves. Do you not believe that Christ is able to redeem any who are willing? Do you not believe that God’s love and grace is sufficiant to forgive and create a new person?
1st John 1:9
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and (B)to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
James 5:16
Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.
I am a Christian, how can you who claims to be a Christian stoop down to the level to call a person vile that you know nothing about? Do you not believe the very tenets of YOUR faith? Do you not understand the person that Christ was? Do you not realize that he spent his time with the very dregs of society. How can you as a person claiming to be a Christian, not want to help those who are without his grace and love. Yes I can understand how you may hate the acts a person commits, and be be revolted by their actions, but how can you claiming you are a Christian, not urn for these people to be redeemed? How can you not while wanting to punish them for their crimes, not desire that they find grace and love through God?

Respectfully (in spite of not receiving the same from you)
el506v

“Why are you assuming that I have not served my time? Why are you continuing to assume things about me that you know nothing about and have not bothered to ask? You claim to have a “factual basis” for your claims, yet what facts do you know about me which you are basing these claims on? In fact. NONE.
So I’ll give you some facts. That way you have something factual to smear me with.
I was raised in a upper-middle class family. I graduated from a private school and went on to an Ivy League university and graduated from there. I continued in my education in post graduate school. I was unable to finish post-grad school because of my conviction. I never made a conscious decision to become a criminal. In fact it was a series of small and seemingly insignificant steps. However in time I found myself in a position that I would have never been in had I had to make a single decision to do that. I realized that I needed to get out before I wound up getting involved further involved in things. So I went turned myself in at the closest FBI division. Since I have been convicted, sentenced, incarcerated for several years in a Federal Prison, released, and completed my term of Federal Supervised Release. For being a ‘criminal’, I have a very amicable relationship with law enforcement. In fact, once a month I and the FBI agent who arrested me get together for breakfast. I now own my own security consulting firm, and contribute positively to my community”
____________
Since you have served time in jail as you claim, your credibility is a BIG issue.

I have read statements from criminals especially those who gloat in their freedom despite the heinous crimes they have committed, your statements despite the emm new tale of reform you have shared above. Initially you CLEARLY indicated that you CONSIDER YOURSELF ON THE OTHER SIDE. Here is your exact remark
” I felt that an opinion from the other side might enlighten some people into the mindset of a person that they dont know”… then you proceeded to enlighten us on your past aberrant acts.

YOU ARE A FELON!! By your own admission. This is simply h-o-r-r-i-b-l-e to have an exchange with an admitted “ex” crook!!!! It is hard to continue this comment.

You write about Christianity and quote several passages. However, One thing you have missed is that in Christianity, forgiveness or not, you reap what you sow.
King David slept with the wife of Uriah and despite the fact that he was forgiven, the child born to them died. Judgment of man is different from that of God.
I have no doubt that criminals, especially those who beat their chests as they commit vile and vicious acts will face the judgment of the Christian God.

Despite your remarks about animals who attack innocent women for expressing their factual opinions in very strong terms about CRIMINALS, be assured that anyone who has the courage to show their face to me (and most strong/gentle/innocent women) while committing crimes of the magnitude which many women and children endure daily, will no matter what– be JAILED.

Technology criminals are by nature cowards and vile. They violate the lives of innocent citizens and interfere with the privacy and lives of people. Those who have been identified in the commission of crimes, apprehended and prosecuted, I am sure you know, get jailed.

And yes, people who commit vicious crimes never live in peace. Please refer to my previous comment above.

Goodness, I am doing my best to respond even though you are a FELON!

For some reason, you seem to have a very strong sense that you are the Vagabond I have referenced in my quote which I have reposted below” I did not name you directly as such.

“In every case, sometimes, you may find some low life CROOK who claims they live happy but research has repeatedly shown this to be a farce.
Most of these vagabonds look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives, and thankfully the passage of time always leads to more ways to identify, prosecute and jail these disgusting FIENDS.”

People who commit crimes (criminals) look over their shoulders all their lives. In general, when interviewed these criminals admit that they always had a deep sense of awareness that they would pay for their crimes.
They knew (and know) no peace because of the crimes they committed and many times their families were shredded because of the acts of fathers and mothers who violently criminalized innocent folk.

Okay I am going to be sick if I do not stop here.
I believe in forgiveness and I live in it, however, I am sickened to have this discourse with an “ex-criminal” who allegedly has done jail time.

It took a lot for me to write this comment and with every word I type, I am more and more nauseated that I am having banter with an EX-CONVICT!!

Having exchanges with “ex-criminals”-muslim or christian sicken me. Not a thing I am happy to admit but the truth nonetheless.

You committed crimes and all we have here is your word that you are reformed and that you are the “Robin hood” of all the vile technology enabled animals that patrol the web, phones etc.

I am disgusted and feel nauseated. I am not delighted with that feeling… but to have someone who knowingly committed crime using technology AND was jailed for same– interacting with me online is disgusting and sickens me.

Most convicts, and of course, this is the general rule, always claim to be innocent, or if adjudged guilty and incarcerated, claim to have committed a lesser crime than that for which they were jailed.

How do I (or anyone else on here) know you are not a murderer and child molester? How do I know you do not stalk innocent women and interfere with their days and nights. Because you have written it?? YOU ARE A FELON by your own admission! You have no credibility.

YOU CLAIM THAT ARE AN EX-CON, AN “EX-CRIMINAL” AND A FELON!!!!! This is not a good discourse.

LM
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

The lady doth protest too much.

Once again you ignore the issues I have brought up and attack me as a person. But I’m going to let that slide one more time.

Where are your comments on the un Constitutionality of the system you are advocating? I gave you cases where that fact is made clear. The US Constitution secures us the right to anonymous free speech, whether that is online or offline.
You say we must follow the law of the land. Well guess what LawyerMommy, The Supreme law of the land has stated that anonymity is a right that cannot be taken away.
What you are adovating would be in violation of the Supreme Law of the land, so guess what that makes you?
Hmmm… Someone who follows the laws = A law abiding citizen. Someone who breaks the laws or is adovating illegal actions = criminal.
Congrats, you have now become a person who is advocating illegal acts in your own country. Since you are now a criminal I assume this makes you a horrible vile person who lives a disgusting and decaying mental and spiritial life.

Secondly, you are completely ignore all the others who would be hurt by such legistlation.
What about Iran, China, etc. People there use anoymity to protect themselves, the system you are adovacting would remove that ability and they would be hunted down and persecuted by their governments. Becuase in those countries their crime is the crime of believing in a non state approved religion. These people are criminals only because of their religious beliefs. So I guess to you they are vile and despicable creatures, since they fall into the criminal catagory? They are violating the law of the land, so I guess they are horrible people as you keep stating.
The system you are adovating would lead the the hunting and persecution of people of your own religion. How very noble of you. This would be the exact same situation as Ancient Rome, when Christians were persecuted and killed because they believed in a religion that was not the state approved religion. They were criminals and were punished according to the legal system of the time

You are nothing but a hypocrite who is smug with her own self-righteousness.
You state: “I believe in forgiveness and I live in it, however, I am sickened to have this discourse with an “ex-criminal” who allegedly has done jail time.”
If you believe in forgiveness, then LIVE it. Stop trying to persecute people for crimes they have paid for, if you believe in forgiveness then give it to people. If talking with an ex criminal sickens you, then you clearly do not understand forgiveness, and you also do not understand your religion. You claim to be a christian yet you are acting selfrighteous. Christ himself had no problem dealing with the scum of society and he was flawless, YOU are the other hand are a sinful human. But you feel more high and might and ‘better’ than people who have made mistakes, when you yourself are a sinful creature. Why are you acting more self-righteous than Christ himself did around sinners? Christ had the right to look down on everyone, you on the other hand dont.
People like you defame the word Christian, and make other christians out there look like hypocrites.
Even more attrocious considering that you are advocating a system that would persecute and slaughter people of your faith all around the world.

You mention state, “One thing you have missed is that in Christianity, forgiveness or not, you reap what you sow.” Its clear you wont consider anything I have to say, but perhaps you will consider how you will answer to your God for you advocating a system that will lead to the persecution and slaughter of his follows. As a Christian you to be an example of Christ. ‘reap what you sow’, Enjoy standing accountable for the fact that you are not representing Christ, you are in fact representing the attitude of the Pharisees who wanted Christ killed.
Romans 12:19
Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say, “I will take revenge; I will pay them back,” says the LORD.

Since you clearly do not wish to discuss the issues and instead wish to continue to slander me and call me all sorts of names and infer that I am a horrible person; there is no point in continue to talk with you. You have ignored the details of this issue. (do you even remember what this article is about?)

I wished to discuss the merits of this original article, not have a discussion about me where in you slander me and call me a bastard. You however are apparently not willing to do so. All you desire to do is engage in Ad Hominem abusive, which I will define for you again, because apparently you didnt read or understand it before.

Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

Note the: “This tactic is logically fallacious…”

That defination is exactly what you are doing. If you truly are a lawyer, I feel very sorry for your clients. They must be getting horrible representation. If you are unable to address issues and discuss the subject matter, then your skills as a lawyer must truly suck.

I did not read your last comment El506v, I am not interested in what you write. You are a confessed criminal (‘ex”) and Felon.

The comments I made preceding the last one especially hold true. EVERYTHING in it is true about criminals, hounds (like you were per your confession ) who target innocents.

_________________

This is a brief explanation so you know why I cannot have an online exchange with a felon, “reformed or otherwise”.

You said I stated you are a common Criminal, a bastard, a felon, a probable stalker of innocent women, a thief, a cheater and a liar.
That you were (are) A low life, coarse and despicable common thief and technology vagabond ( delusionally using the term “sophisticated to describe coarse violent and illegal conduct performed using new technology!).

You said I stated That you are (were) some common thief who hides online (obscuring his acts and illegal, immoral and vicious violations of lives. A technology adroit thief covers this thefts and numerous crimes) and continues to commit violent vicious and horrible vile crimes against unassuming people especially women and children. Using the computer and other means to violently break the law.

Also that I stated you were (are) A violent coward targeting innocents, stalking, robbing, lying, stealing identities, cheating and living a life steeped in vile morass of crimes.

That I called you A crass vagabond who lives a pathetic and unfulfilled life (like other vagabonds and criminals) looking over his shoulders for the rest of his natural because of the vile path they have chosen of their own volition, greed and now desperation.

Despite the facts you have referenced and indicated that I stated and directed at you, let me repeat why I will also NOT be conversing with you here again====

YOU are an ADMITTED CRIMINAL (former as you claim), a FELON and an EX-CONVICT!!

I cannot in good conscience have ANY sort of on going conversation with such a person. Any such exchange revolts and sickens me. I am disgusted and feel soiled by the exchange here.

Criminals ex or “otherwise” ARE NOT the sort of people I engage in conversations. Many of my experience are inveterate liars and thieves who are never truly reformed. Most LIE and commit horrific crimes with monastic regularity.

So, I will not be explaining anything about how to stop technology crimes against women and children with you or anyone like you.

There will be other people who will converse with you under this alias or others which you might have, I am just not the sort to “consort” with felons, ex-cons and criminals “reformed” and otherwise.

YOU are what you are and I choose to have no part of you here or elsewhere.

You are a FELON and a CRIMINAL (former as you claim).

I am revolted by people who commit crimes against innocent people especially women and their children.

They will never live well. That is what history has shown. They are scum, low life abhorrent slime. They live in the vomit they have created.

They are frequently strangled by the nooses they have created for others. They die with a deep sense of fear (acknowledged or covered with external and despicable pathetic bravado) and lack of legitimate achievement because no matter what they try to clean up, they are criminals.
They have no whole lives. They are the undesirables.

Criminals are crass and vulgar. There is no sophisticated criminal. Their makeup no matter the tools they use are all the same. They are horrible Losers, con men and liars. They should be locked up and the rest of us protected from them.

I am who I am and you are who, and you will live until you die with what ever you do or did.

I have nothing to do with someone who was (is) a self admitted and confessed FELON, CRIMINAL ( allegedly an “ex” miscreant) and an admitted EX-CON who did jail time for crimes he claims knowingly committed!

You and I will never have anything to talk about in real time and the web is no exception.

LM

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/stalking-criminality-the-law-and-women/

I just find it amazing that someone can write 20 pages of explanation about why they are not going to discuss anything with you, because you are such a vile person. Is this a plea for help?

Very good point Johntinker, for not wanting to talk to him she certainly has an alot to say.

I also like how she continues to ignore the questions and issues he’s raised. Apparently the US Constitution isnt important to her. So much for being a lawyer who wishes to live in a lawful society. lol
wait a second. I just realized something. Her wanting an illegal law that is against the law of the land makes HER a criminal! Wonder how she will cope will being such a horrible person.

Also guess she doesnt care about people in Iran and China and other countries where anonymity is the only way that people can speak about their political/religious beliefs. Since those people are breaking the ‘law of the land’, by choosing to believe in a religion other than the ‘state approved’ religion, these people must be horrible people. How dare they break the laws of their country. guess she doesnt care at the slaughter of people of her own faith around the world.

how she can claim to be a decent christian, and more to the point a decent human being, when she is wanting a sytem that will be used to oppress billions is insane.

Found this, kinda fits with the discussion that she’s not having.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403