Thursday, March 15, 2018

Are you willing to let the government protect you?

I think the thing that makes preppers so odd or different than "normal" society is that most preppers believe in self-sufficiency.  This is becoming more and more rare. As a society we seem to be loosing the ability or desire to take care of ourselves and those around us.

Some want the government to take care of their feelings, retirement, even income.

Here in Missouri we have a State Rep by name of Jim Neely (R-Cameron).  He wants to block porn from everyone's computers and internet connected devices.  For the children of course.  It's always "For the children".

"The bill says a distributor who makes or sells a product that is accessible to the internet, like a phone or a computer would be required to install a blocking software that would prevent the device from accessing obscene material.
Neely says it would apply to all porn. A person could have the blocking software removed if they prove they are more 18-years-old and pays a $20 deactivation fee. The money would go into a fund called the “Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Prevention Fund.”
I don't care what your personal views on pornography are, this is preposterous that he would even feel comfort with offering something like this.  Yet people are jumping on board. Saying "YES DO IT!"  While completely ignoring that fact that they are leaving the choice of what they read, watch and listen to online. They are willing to hand over the decision of what to watch to the government.  They are willing to let someone else determine what is and what is not pornographic. They may even hand over they decision as to what is or is not appropriate literature.  How long will it be before the groups that are offended by what is in their lack of opinion diversity, trigger words, the presence of firearms, history or works of art? 
We already see this on college campuses.  People wanting to dictate what can and can not be said, places that certain races are allowed and others are not allowed. 
Imagine this in your home, on you phone or tablet.
Who are you comfortable with deciding what you can or can not view? The Pope? A self professed Black Lives Matter leader? The lawmaker's Baptist Minister? Donald Trump? Chuck Shumer? Eric Grietens?  A lobbyist from Focus on the Family or a lobbyist from the porn industry?  
Now he proposes that for $20 you can have the software disabled.  Once you prove you are of age.  So we get a porn tax. Call it what you want, it's a porn tax.  You want to look at porn? You want to disable the software just because you don't like Big Brother looking over your shoulder? Pay the tax.
Are you a computer tech? Are you proficient to know if the software is gone? Are you able to tell if the software is sending information to the company the state decided to hire to keep you from websites they don't like? Data mining is big business.  It is not out of the realm of possibility that this software could scrape your hard drive data or report your cell phone location.
It was not that long ago here in Missouri that we found out that the Highway Patrol gave lists CCW permit holders to the federal government. . This caused a backlash that moved the administration of conceal carry permits to the local level.  Why?  Because privacy, that is why. It also shows a precedent of what the state is willing to do without oversight. 
Of course this only effects people who are willing to follow the law should it pass.  Porn blockers have proven to stop kids from seeing porn about as well as a coffee filter works as a condom.  Kids are smart, some kids are scary computer smart.  They will crack it, the will disable it.  They will figure out how to use VPNs to get around it.  They already do.  Sometimes for porn, sometimes for pirated movies and music.  Once one kid finds a work around, social media, 4chan, and hack sites will have it posted for all to see. 
Apple routinely offers updates to disable jailbreaking on their phones, there is usually a work around posted in days if not hours after they release it. If one of the richest companies in the world can not stop work around how is going to do better with .01 percent of the funds available to Apple?  And Apple has a financial reason to stop jailbreaking!  They want you to get software from their store.  Software that is vetted and a vast a majority of the time virus free. 
The article mentions distributors will be responsible for this or face civil action. How many distributors will fall in line?  How many will choose not to sell to Missourians? or Alabama and Rhode Island where similar legislation has been introduced? What are they going to do about people who build their own systems? My 14 year old son (now 15) built his own computer.  Are they going to try to enforce it with people like him? Like I mentioned before, one encrypted vpn connection and they will never know. 
If you are worried about your kids and porn.  Setup your own security, its out there.  Have your kids only use the their PCs, tablets and phones where you can see them.  Talk with them about what is and is not appropriate.  Do what you feel you need to do, but take the time to parent your own kids. Don't leave it to the government.  Once you hand a job over to the government they rarely if ever give it back, and most times it grows.  What is a PC, phone or tablet porn blocker today could be the government ran content tv filter of tomorrow.   This is not beyond possibility.  Many tv's and  dvd/blu-ray players are already set up to be "smart" with apps and updates.  This makes them internet connected devices, and part of the equipment requiring a porn filter. 
Imagine setting down to watch the new Game of Thrones and BLOCKED comes up in its place.  Their is nudity, sex, violence and bad words.  To some that equates porn. 
So take care of your own or loose the ability to do so.  For me, I choose to parent my kids myself.  No thanks on the nanny state. 
 I leave you with the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall who wrote for the majority in STANLEY v. GEORGIA:
"These are the rights that appellant is asserting in the case before us. He is asserting the right to read or observe what he pleases -- the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of his own home. He is asserting the right to be free from state inquiry into the contents of his library. Georgia contends that appellant does not have these rights, that there are certain types of materials that the individual may not read or even possess. Georgia justifies this assertion by arguing that the films in the present case are obscene.

But we think that mere categorization of these films as "obscene" is insufficient justification for such a drastic invasion of personal liberties guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." STANLEY v. GEORGIA

Argued: Jan. 14 and 15, 1969. --- Decided: April 7, 1969

No comments:

Post a Comment

Stress tests and public restrooms

So you’re getting ready for a trip. Maybe it’s a 4 hour trip across the state, or maybe its a 13 hour drive for a business trip.  ...