Why isn’t she charged with spreading child porn? The girls were under 18, she made videos of them naked and spread them around. She should do a few years per picture and be on the sex offender registry for life...also should be banned from using computers or electronic communications.
The spoofing her identity is good evidence she knew it was against the law. I hope they don’t let her use the excuse she didn’t know it was wrong, because clearly she did.
Now the poor Karen is upset she’s being harassed?! Just wait until you get to gen pop and the word gets out it’s for making fake kiddy porn, biatch!
I hope those girls get every dime she owns in their defamation lawsuits and then some.

Well, the main distinction really is that MLK and others in the Civil Rights movement broke laws in order to show the injustice of those very laws. Going to trial and living through the punishment was part of the demonstration of the absurdity of the laws themselves.

The only law that Snowden broke (IMO) was the unauthorized release of classified/secret information. He didn't break that law to show the absurdity of the US government's secrecy regime (though it is out of control), he did it to notify the US and the world citizenry of the extent of US surveillance of electronic communications. Getting punish for breaking the law does not serve his objective of informing and sparking debate, it only restricts his ability to continue to engage on these issues.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:
(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.
Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.
My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.
God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.


Luckily, this law allows me to state that I have a moral conviction that you're a moron. And I religiously believe morons should be punched at every available opportunity. The FSM told me to. Also...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Meaning anyone who said to a religious student that they think that being religious is retarded would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the religious movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being religious is retarded to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

FTFY

The march is on for the normalization of sin in our daily life. This is what the bill says:

(b) "Bullying" means any written, verbal, or physical act, or any electronic communication, by a pupil directed at 1 or more other pupils that is intended or that a reasonable person would know is likely to harm 1 or more pupils either directly or indirectly by doing any of the following:(i) Substantially interfering with educational opportunities, benefits, or programs of 1 or more pupils.(ii) Substantially and adversely affecting the ability of a pupil to participate in or benefit from the school district's or public school's educational programs or activities by placing the pupil in reasonable fear of physical harm.(iii) Having an actual and substantial detrimental effect on a pupil's physical or mental health or causing substantial emotional distress.

Meaning anyone who said to a gay student that they think that being gay is a sin would be indicted under the law as a bully. This is the ultimate goal of the gay movement, not just for the toleration of the lifestyle, or even the integration of the lifestyle, but the stifling of any dissent. They want anyone who says being gay is a sin to be labeled a bigot and to have it be declared hatespeech.

My question is, if gays are born that way, what about pedophiles? Aren't they just victims of their genetics and the behavior is irreversable? If a man can marry another man, why not his horse? Why not his car? Once you open these doors, you can never close them.

God has blessed this country greatly, and gave us much favor among the nations. Yet, from those who are given much, much more will be required. We have failed to do what is required in every respect. Judgement is upon us for breaking His law, it is at our peril to allow these things. If He didn't spare israel for them, He certainly won't spare the United States.

Excerpts from
The Net: A Users's Guidelines and Netiquette
By Arlene H. Rinaldi - 1995

"A complete guide to netiquette. "
...
Electronic Communications - Email, LISTSERV groups, Mailing lists and Usenet

* Keep messages short and to the point.
* Focus only on one subject per message, use a descriptive subject line
* Include your signature at the bottom of Email messages.
* Capitalizing means shouting in internet language, so keep to a minimum.
* Limit line length.
* Follow chain of command procedures for corresponding with superiors.
* Be professional and careful what you say about others. Email is easily forwarded.
* Cite all quotes and references.
* It is considered rude to forward personal email to mailing lists or Usenet groups without the authors permission.
* Be careful when using sarcasm and humor.
* Acronyms can be used to abbreviate when possble. :-) = happy face, BTW = by the way, FYI = for your information
....

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Hmm, She went into his email?

§ 2701. Unlawful Access to Stored Communications
(a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever–
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Punishment.--The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is–
(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain--
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in any other case.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized–
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service;
(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user; or
(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.

She violated Federal Law, possibly much more.
§ 1343. Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Television
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html
But more to the point, she intercepted communication which is the same as taking someones mail before they can read it.

18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latest
news&id=2149

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/usc2701.htm

You can see my comment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIlWwI0rmFs&feature=player_embedded
The moral of the story is don't be petty. It could make you a felon.


you complete cock-blocking insect piece of SHIT!....hehehe, you don't get laid much, huh??

Hmm, She went into his email?

§ 2701. Unlawful Access to Stored Communications

(a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever–

(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or

(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Punishment.--The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is–

(1) if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain--
(A) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and
(B) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in any other case.

(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized–

(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service;

(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user; or

(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.

She violated Federal Law, possibly much more.

§ 1343. Fraud by Wire, Radio, or Television
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html

But more to the point, she intercepted communication which is the same as taking someones mail before they can read it.

18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html

http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2149

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/usc2701.htm

You can see my comment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIlWwI0rmFs&feature=player_embedded

The moral of the story is don't be petty. It could make you a felon.

I didn't realize that condemning the government for using violence against peaceful protestors was the same thing as a vote to "kill Iranians" or invade, or anything else that could be construed as jingoistic.

Here's the full text of the resolution (which was also passed in the Senate by unanimous voice vote):

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;

(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and

(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

I would have a hard time voting "Nay" on that myself. Only the second half of the second section is something I have not heard Obama himself say.

Mostly what sucked about the vote was how it was spun by Republicans on TV as being clear outreach to the supporters of Mousavi, which the bill was not.

Goddammit! I have had enough already!

I DEMAND that we impeach Biden RIGHT NOW. This is simply UNBELIEVABLE! UNACCEPTABLE!

I mean, lie to me about WMD's, mislead us into a war that costs thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, wiretap electronic communications without warrants or checks to your hearts' content, but DON'T you EVER lie about or exaggerate the facts about an utterly meaningless conversational exchange!

That shit WILL NOT fly with the American people.

Off with his fucking head I say!

MEPs debated the reform of the regulatory framework for electronic communications - including mobile and fixed telephones, broadcasting and the internet. The telecoms package seeks to strengthen consumer rights and privacy protection, to ensure a consistent application of regulatory measures and to modernise radio spectrum use. The entire European Parliament will vote on the package during the second September plenary
(...)
Finally, Ms Trautmann regretted that the intellectual property rights issue had arisen now, and felt that it should be resolved without substantially changing the proposal.

Source

Strengthening privacy protection while resolving the IP rights issues in a way the industry would find acceptable seems contradictory to me.

Upvote for him never actually figuring out how to fire his weapon.

*EDIT*

Here's some more info on the video directly from baitcar.com

"This incident occurred in on June 6, 2004 when a well known 28-year-old car thief drove up to a parked bait truck in rural Langley in a stolen vehicle. (Between the years 1997 and 2004, he had been charged with 123 criminal offences.) He dumped the first stolen vehicle and then stole the bait truck. As he drove off in the bait truck, the suspect pulled out a loaded handgun and tried fourteen times to fire it indiscriminantly out the window. It appears that the gun was jammed and he was unable to fire it, but his body language indicates that he fully expected it to. The suspect then began casing cars and stopped numerous times to break into three vehicles in order to steal property from them. Soon a police officer who was dispatched to the location of the bait truck in the City of Abbostford arrived on scene while the suspect was out of the truck breaking into cars. As soon as the suspect saw the police car, he accellerated and reached speeds in excess of 140 Km/h while screaming "Oncoming" at the top of his lungs whenever he approached stop signs or red lights. The suspect struck three separate vehicles before dumping the bait truck, stealing a Honda Accord (that had a steering wheel lock on it) and escaping.

The suspect was identified through the bait car video which clearly reinforced the belief that he posed a significant risk to the safety of the public. A large manhunt began involving IMPACT, Surrey RCMP Auto Theft, bike and dog sections, Langley RCMP Street Enforcement Unit, Port Moody Street Crime Unit, the Integrated Emergency Response Team, the South Fraser Emergency Reponse Team, and Air-1, the RCMP's helicopter based at YVR. On June 22, the suspect was spotted behind the wheel of a stolen vehicle in the City of Langley. During the surveillance on the suspect, he stole a second vehicle, this time a Ford F150 from an underground parking lot in Surrey. Due to the excessive speeds the suspect was driving at even without him being aware that he was being followed, Air-1 was called in to provide coverage from the air. The suspect eventually spotted the helicopter, and in an attempt to flee from it, he drove through numerous fences and backyards at a townhouse complex in the Newton area of Surrey. Finally, after ramming the gate of an underground parking lot, he ran inside a large grocery story and fled out the back door into the waiting arms of officers who had surrounded it. The suspect was held in custody for a year awaiting his trial. He was recently sentenced to a four year prison term as a result of 24 charges that stemmed from numerous incidents, including the theft of the bait truck."

Also, in regards to them not cutting the engine:

"At the time of this incident, the bait car program had been up and running for only one month. The engine disabling policy at that time dictated that a bait car engine should only be disabled if the bait car is being driven slowly or is stopped, so that the driver would not lose power steering and power brakes. When this bait truck first took off from police, the responding officer called for the engine to be disabled, but this request was denied since the dispatcher could see the high speeds of the truck on the computer monitor and followed the policy that was in effect at that time. As the vehicle fled and didn't slow down, an attempt to disable the engine was made, but the cellular coverage in this particlar area of rural Aldergrove was weak and electronic communication between the dispatch centre and the bait truck was lost for a long period of time. When communications were re-established, the suspect was getting out of the truck and stealing his next vehicle to escape."