If you don't believe in God , what cause can you have for any real hope and why not off yourself when life becomes inconvenient. It makes perfect sense that as a society when we stop believing in God and treat human life as nothing more important then any other animal life , people loose hope and start killing themselves, and others. If you don't think the rise in crime and school shootings are also related , think again. Most of the shooters were also suicidal as evidenced by there lack of any exit strategy yet having well planned entry. Suicide by cop and why not take some of the other who cause pain with you. IF there is no God , what difference does any of it make, if your in pain, what reactions seems best, The conclusion is quite logically and fact based, even though for some reason people always posit mental illness. Of coarse the DSM list ( an overdeveloped sense of reality) as a cause of depression, so... there's that.
Of coarse that is one of the things I love about being a Catholic, there is no other philosophy in the world that allows you to make use of every suffering weather big or small. Nothing need be wasted and all life and all suffering has value. Of coarse that makes no sense unless you first believe, still, it is a way of life that brings me great joy in the face of what is beyond my control, even if it involves great suffering.
Of coarse that is one of the things I love about being a Catholic, there is no other philosophy in the world that allows you to make use of every suffering weather big or small. Nothing need be wasted and all life and all suffering has value. Of coarse that makes no sense unless you first believe, still, it is a way of life that brings me great joy in the face of what is beyond my control, even if it involves great suffering.
An excellent point. Basically , if you don't believe in God , what cause can you have for any real hope and why not off yourself when life becomes inconvenient. It makes perfect sense that as a society when we stop believing in God and treat human life as nothing more important then any other animal life , people loose hope and start killing themselves, and others. If you don't think the rise in crime and school shootings are also related , think again. Most of the shooters were also suicidal as evidenced by there lack of any exit strategy yet having well planned entry. Suicide by cop and why not take some of the other who cause pain with you. IF there is no God , what difference does any of it make, if your in pain, what reactions seems best, The conclusion is quite logically and fact based, even though for some reason people always posit mental illness. Of coarse the DSM list ( an overdeveloped sense of reality) as a cause of depression, so... there's that.
Seriously, the fact there are gender imbalances in employment in IT in every major industrialized country is old news. More interestingly the article seems to want us to unanimously agree that is a bad thing. I personally agree that it is , but I'm also smart enough to know that my belief that women should be treated with equal dignity to men is a direct result of my Judeo-christian value system and that such a system is far from universal.
So, the reason I claim women should be given equal dignity of treatment under the law , is because they are like men, images of God, even that is an argument for equal dignity not necessarily identical treatment. Only in the west have to two become so confused that many people don't understand the difference in definitions.
Can I get a Buddhist, a Hindu a Muslim and an atheist to give me a good reason from their philosophical standpoint that women should be treated with the same dignity and fairness as men.
I know there is no such reason from an atheistic standpoint,because there is no such thing as right and wrong in that philosophy simply those with power , those without and those who complain about it.
I'm pretty sure the Muslim philosophy would not uphold equality of the sexes and various grounds. If I'm wrong please correct me and quote the koran.
What about Buddhism and Hindi? I'm less educated on these. They have female and male Gods correct? but does that say anything at all about the ethics of proper treatment? and if so why isn't it reflected in traditional Hindu and Buddhist society?
This idea shows the major flaw that exists in the idea of an 'evidence based' or scientifically based government, that is I have heard espoused occasionally. For instance most people would agree slavery is undesirable and wrong, but that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where it is efficient and maybe most efficient in accomplishing a specific goal, Say creating the largest amount of comfort and wealth for the largest possible number of people. Any attempt to create a society based primarily on data that is gathered scientifically would still need to deal with the ethical questions of what is right and wrong, which goals are 'justified' and how far is too far when it comes to various harms imagined or real , when attempting to accomplish a specific goal. It becomes more complicated when you start taking into account multiple goals, for instances maximizing health vs maximizing personal freedom vs maximize food and financial security. Still there would be no guarantee that it wouldn't be proved that greatly restricting the 'rights' of one group would not be the most efficient way to maximize all 3. It probably doesn't help that the whole idea of 'rights' is basically a religious concept. Anyone who believes there are 'rights' rather then just 'what I happen to like' is appealing to a transcendent absolute that can only have a real basis in deity.
Sure you could claim 'rights' are somehow part of the 'agreed / negotiated social contract' but honestly any such contract would be so fluid that there would be no thing you could every point too and say everyone should be allowed this all the time. Also, that is a completely reverse argument for any kind of change to the existing contract.
Time to poison an unknown distance of ocean capable of spreading radiated water through the out a large area. Oh well, the survival of the species is overrated anyhow.
exactly my point, even of 'the people who have cable' many of them are not actually buying cable they are buying internet. So it makes no sense the 'cable' prices are going up.
yes, but the 'progress' in China is primarily due to a totalitarian government that is in the habit of simply 'disappearing' dissenters. The only reason there isn't more descent is because the every citizen is kept on a closer and closer leash and fear of non conformity is taught from a young age. Children are raised by the state not their parents for the most part, as many of them spend day and night at school. All information is control tightly in both the media and the internet, 'for the good of all', and of coarse the 'good' is what is best for those who rule. Even so occasionally descent shows up and you can expect to be imprisoned, or killed for speaking or holding opinions common to Christianity or even certain strains of Buddhism. The difference being, it isn't 'citizen zealots' is it the actual government coming after you.
Oh yes, I see the logic, we have a bloated overpriced service that so many people don't want because they seek their entertainment in a fashion they have more control over. We have a network we can also sell , but make less profit on then the service. So logically we are going to expand the offerings of the service and require people to pay more for it. Or better yet, we will charge less for cable and internet bundled together then for internet stand alone.
How about, ask people what they want, and sell it to them at a prices that competes with their other options, rather then trying every kind of mind game possible to squeeze every last penny from the consumer.
I'm sure a certain level of computer skills can get you a good score and perhaps be used to derail that person you don't like. ( assuming of coarse you don't get caught.)
I wonder how much you loose in you credit score for not being an atheist. ( I'm sure it is a good chunk from the people I've talked too.)
Of coarse if there is no God, why shouldn't it be that way. As Pavalov put it 'The sooner human beings get over this idea that free will exists and get on with the business of governing the human race , the better off we will all be". Pretty much consistent with Stalin , Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini. Unless we forget , the Chinese government today is a intellectual descendant of Lenin and Stalin and helped into power by nothing less then the communist party of the USSR.
All of your points are valid, however, that doesn't mean what currently is , 'should be'. Just because something 'might' be used as political speech or art etc at 'some point' doesn't justify the invasion of privacy that is entailed in allowing anyone with a camera to do whatever they want with any image of me captured at any time in my life. If it did there would be no reason I couldn't use the image of Courtney Love or Melinda Trump and cut them onto the faces of actresses in my porno movie.
Seriously , unless something is 'currently' being publicly reported in a 'registered new source' there is only one other legitimate to keep personally identifiable information , that being billing. Every other use basically equates to 'so we can make money , so we can make more money'.
The idea that every arbitrary piece of information that exists about an individual for their entire lifetime should be used against them when it is most convenient for some archivist to find it is almost the point of 'right to be forgotten' law.
Take your example, perhaps said politician has had a sincere change of heart about sexual harassment, dragging up old footage from the past can really only server one purpose from a political perspective which is to focus the mind of the public on the wrong doings of the person in the past in what is as often as not an erroneous attempt to discredit their character in the current moment. The reality is that past behaviors is often times NOT a good indicator of current character and behavior because bad experiences with past behaviors is exactly how people learn. So as a good rule of thumb, if they are not currently doing it, and haven't in the last 5 years, the evidence presented is as likely as not , irrelevant to a persons current character, because it is impossible to know the effects of those events on the individual.
which country where they in? Where were their servers? I assume this was illegal in their native country and they should have known better. Of coarse, being a private military contractor isn't illegal, so I'm not sure why this should be. I would think the people who own the site should have known to put it in a country with a small king and include him in on the money.
So right and that is something just as much on the left as on the right. However, that doesn't mean any given policy when evaluated on it's own merits should be opposed simply because it comes from the side of the isle you don't stand on. To me if your data-sets aren't available for peer review, then basically no on can tell if you actually did science or just cooked the books and applied a convenient method. I don't see where 'confidentiality' should be a problem. It is easy enough to clean data and divorce it from specific individuals. The point is the data you claim to be using and the methods you claim to apply should be freely available for scrutiny by others. Including, not being combined by 'proprietary' processes that no one else can attempt to reproduce, or you aren't actually doing science. Nothing can be considered proved 'scientifically' without significant predictability. If you are choosing between doing science and making a profit. Your choice. You can't pervert the scientific method simply because it is convenient without expect to equally pervert the scientific credibility of your conclusions. Which is basically what this policy is attempting to address.
I mean , how do you remotely verify age. take a selfie and picture of your drivers license. I guess that would be a start, that would at least prove there was someone with a drivers license, your registered name and that looks something like you ( assuming you could access DMV records) . Still talk about a privacy nightmare. Maybe some kind of third party verifier would be better.
also, if the kids parent comes in and says he wasn't allowed to buy the candy , the store probably is required by law to take it back ( although they could probably keep the money as damages). The point being ANY transaction with a minor is very much and the merchants own risk because a minor DOES NOT have legal control of themselves or any of their property. So unless they see mom and dad are their and see them hand the kid the money there is probably a risk. It gets even dicier if a 10+ year old is sent to the corner store with mom's pin to pick something up ( as happens all the time). Mom / Dad can easily show up at the store and say the kid didn't have permission and expect visa etc to act like they would with any other (unauthorized transaction) of coarse the catch is their kid may wind up charged with theft in juvenile court if they do.
"The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data "
Am I reading this incorrectly? To me this means the EPA is relying on data that is not publicly available for peer review. How can you even call it science if you data-sets are not available for peer review?
hmm... do you consider data retention a form of speech? What about account information? Or Tax id's should publishing those be considered freedom of speech or freedom of the press? Generally companies get in trouble for breaking data privacy laws. Is it really that much of a stretch to expect them to delete the data?
I think some simple tests are easy enough to apply: 1) does serve as to support or a form of political speech? ( or is it just hanging around because someone dumped it there). 2) Is the data being reported on a part of what is normally considered 'public record'.
I think if it doesn't fit one of those 2 criteria you should be able to require a company to delete all records of your existence and relationship with them from all databases.
Of coarse some of this can be handled through developing new social norms. For instance, is it unreasonable to expect your friends not to publish pictures of your children on Facebook? Personally I'd say it is rude at least without permission, even more so if they label them. ( not sure I'd go so far as to say we need a law against it, but there are many things that are wrong for which it is ineffective and or unwise to attempt to create legislation to curtail).
A 'right to be forgotten' i imagine would something more like a take down notice. Companies make money by collecting information, who does that information belong to? One possibility is the information belongs to the person it is 'about'. So we could pass a law saying you 'either' you may publish no information about non public figures without their express permission OR if requested you must delete all information you have retained from all databases ( and back ups) for a given individual.
I could see how that could get into constitutional issues , a balancing of free speech vs the right to privacy. Of coarse, if we have such a strong right to privacy that the state doesn't even have the ability to prevent a woman from killing her child ( Roe vs Wade). Then it would seem the right to privacy generally trumps the right to freedom of speech , unless there is compelling public interest or the speech is of an innately political nature.
Some things facebook collects without my permission:
My name and the name of my family members when someone puts a photo up and labels it with names. The location and time the photo was taken. Also, it has a collection of people who share the same photo and a list of the things those people like and don't like , their political interests and where they live. By making connections between the people and data-mining the photo's with my name, you can certainly find out things like, locations of been, political events, people I associate with and love.
Everything needed, to stalk, harass or attempt to co-erase me into something you I otherwise might be unwilling to do.
( of coarse that was all Ok, when the think tanks that supported Obama were using it, now everyone is up in a tizzy because a group that helped the republics used it). Works both ways. If you keep and gather the data , someone will get it and use it.
I think a right to be forgotten law is more then overdue in the good old USA. Of coarse one things I've always wondered about that is how much data do you need to keep on someone so that you know you should not collect data on them:)
Interesting point, and unless anyone forget, after the republicans have passed a law allowing sites to be punished for hosting terrorist content, we can expect the democrats to classify anti-abortion and pro-catholic web sites and terrorisitic in their content, when they get in power.
Censorship is always dangerous, much better to monitor then sensor , then actually punish people when the break the law.
What it is first and foremost, is the human action responsible for each of us being here. Treating sex like a plaything is to disrespect every human being created by it.
There is no such thing as sex work with 'dignity'. Selling , what is naturally an act of intimate affection and bonding , that has it's primary function in the creation of other human beings is utterly and by definition disrespectful to anyone involved.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't believe in God , what cause can you have for any real hope and why not off yourself when life becomes inconvenient.
It makes perfect sense that as a society when we stop believing in God and treat human life as nothing more important then any other animal life , people loose hope and start killing themselves, and others. If you don't think the rise in crime and school shootings are also related , think again. Most of the shooters were also suicidal as evidenced by there lack of any exit strategy yet having well planned entry. Suicide by cop and why not take some of the other who cause pain with you.
IF there is no God , what difference does any of it make, if your in pain, what reactions seems best, The conclusion is quite logically and fact based, even though for some reason people always posit mental illness. Of coarse the DSM list ( an overdeveloped sense of reality) as a cause of depression, so... there's that.
Of coarse that is one of the things I love about being a Catholic, there is no other philosophy in the world that allows you to make use of every suffering weather big or small. Nothing need be wasted and all life and all suffering has value. Of coarse that makes no sense unless you first believe, still, it is a way of life that brings me great joy in the face of what is beyond my control, even if it involves great suffering.
Of coarse that is one of the things I love about being a Catholic, there is no other philosophy in the world that allows you to make use of every suffering weather big or small. Nothing need be wasted and all life and all suffering has value. Of coarse that makes no sense unless you first believe, still, it is a way of life that brings me great joy in the face of what is beyond my control, even if it involves great suffering.
An excellent point. Basically , if you don't believe in God , what cause can you have for any real hope and why not off yourself when life becomes inconvenient.
It makes perfect sense that as a society when we stop believing in God and treat human life as nothing more important then any other animal life , people loose hope and start killing themselves, and others. If you don't think the rise in crime and school shootings are also related , think again. Most of the shooters were also suicidal as evidenced by there lack of any exit strategy yet having well planned entry. Suicide by cop and why not take some of the other who cause pain with you.
IF there is no God , what difference does any of it make, if your in pain, what reactions seems best, The conclusion is quite logically and fact based, even though for some reason people always posit mental illness. Of coarse the DSM list ( an overdeveloped sense of reality) as a cause of depression, so... there's that.
Seriously, the fact there are gender imbalances in employment in IT in every major industrialized country is old news. More interestingly the article seems to want us to unanimously agree that is a bad thing. I personally agree that it is , but I'm also smart enough to know that my belief that women should be treated with equal dignity to men is a direct result of my Judeo-christian value system and that such a system is far from universal.
So, the reason I claim women should be given equal dignity of treatment under the law , is because they are like men, images of God, even that is an argument for equal dignity not necessarily identical treatment. Only in the west have to two become so confused that many people don't understand the difference in definitions.
Can I get a Buddhist, a Hindu a Muslim and an atheist to give me a good reason from their philosophical standpoint that women should be treated with the same dignity and fairness as men.
I know there is no such reason from an atheistic standpoint,because there is no such thing as right and wrong in that philosophy simply those with power , those without and those who complain about it.
I'm pretty sure the Muslim philosophy would not uphold equality of the sexes and various grounds. If I'm wrong please correct me and quote the koran.
What about Buddhism and Hindi? I'm less educated on these. They have female and male Gods correct? but does that say anything at all about the ethics of proper treatment? and if so why isn't it reflected in traditional Hindu and Buddhist society?
you can have NO DOUBT the CIA and NSA ALREADY ARE !!.
This idea shows the major flaw that exists in the idea of an 'evidence based' or scientifically based government, that is I have heard espoused occasionally.
For instance most people would agree slavery is undesirable and wrong, but that doesn't mean there aren't circumstances where it is efficient and maybe most efficient in accomplishing a specific goal, Say creating the largest amount of comfort and wealth for the largest possible number of people. Any attempt to create a society based primarily on data that is gathered scientifically would still need to deal with the ethical questions of what is right and wrong, which goals are 'justified' and how far is too far when it comes to various harms imagined or real , when attempting to accomplish a specific goal. It becomes more complicated when you start taking into account multiple goals, for instances maximizing health vs maximizing personal freedom vs maximize food and financial security. Still there would be no guarantee that it wouldn't be proved that greatly restricting the 'rights' of one group would not be the most efficient way to maximize all 3. It probably doesn't help that the whole idea of 'rights' is basically a religious concept. Anyone who believes there are 'rights' rather then just 'what I happen to like' is appealing to a transcendent absolute that can only have a real basis in deity.
Sure you could claim 'rights' are somehow part of the 'agreed / negotiated social contract' but honestly any such contract would be so fluid that there would be no thing you could every point too and say everyone should be allowed this all the time. Also, that is a completely reverse argument for any kind of change to the existing contract.
Time to poison an unknown distance of ocean capable of spreading radiated water through the out a large area.
Oh well, the survival of the species is overrated anyhow.
exactly my point, even of 'the people who have cable' many of them are not actually buying cable they are buying internet. So it makes no sense the 'cable' prices are going up.
yes, but the 'progress' in China is primarily due to a totalitarian government that is in the habit of simply 'disappearing' dissenters. The only reason there isn't more descent is because the every citizen is kept on a closer and closer leash and fear of non conformity is taught from a young age. Children are raised by the state not their parents for the most part, as many of them spend day and night at school. All information is control tightly in both the media and the internet, 'for the good of all', and of coarse the 'good' is what is best for those who rule.
Even so occasionally descent shows up and you can expect to be imprisoned, or killed for speaking or holding opinions common to Christianity or even certain strains of Buddhism. The difference being, it isn't 'citizen zealots' is it the actual government coming after you.
Do you have cable?
Do you watch cable only on demand?
Would you pay for cable if it didn't make your internet cheaper?
Oh yes, I see the logic, we have a bloated overpriced service that so many people don't want because they seek their entertainment in a fashion they have more control over. We have a network we can also sell , but make less profit on then the service. So logically we are going to expand the offerings of the service and require people to pay more for it. Or better yet, we will charge less for cable and internet bundled together then for internet stand alone.
How about, ask people what they want, and sell it to them at a prices that competes with their other options, rather then trying every kind of mind game possible to squeeze every last penny from the consumer.
I'm sure a certain level of computer skills can get you a good score and perhaps be used to derail that person you don't like. ( assuming of coarse you don't get caught.)
I wonder how much you loose in you credit score for not being an atheist. ( I'm sure it is a good chunk from the people I've talked too.)
Of coarse if there is no God, why shouldn't it be that way. As Pavalov put it 'The sooner human beings get over this idea that free will exists and get on with the business of governing the human race , the better off we will all be". Pretty much consistent with Stalin , Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini. Unless we forget , the Chinese government today is a intellectual descendant of Lenin and Stalin and helped into power by nothing less then the communist party of the USSR.
All of your points are valid, however, that doesn't mean what currently is , 'should be'. Just because something 'might' be used as political speech or art etc at 'some point' doesn't justify the invasion of privacy that is entailed in allowing anyone with a camera to do whatever they want with any image of me captured at any time in my life. If it did there would be no reason I couldn't use the image of Courtney Love or Melinda Trump and cut them onto the faces of actresses in my porno movie.
Seriously , unless something is 'currently' being publicly reported in a 'registered new source' there is only one other legitimate to keep personally identifiable information , that being billing. Every other use basically equates to 'so we can make money , so we can make more money'.
The idea that every arbitrary piece of information that exists about an individual for their entire lifetime should be used against them when it is most convenient for some archivist to find it is almost the point of 'right to be forgotten' law.
Take your example, perhaps said politician has had a sincere change of heart about sexual harassment, dragging up old footage from the past can really only server one purpose from a political perspective which is to focus the mind of the public on the wrong doings of the person in the past in what is as often as not an erroneous attempt to discredit their character in the current moment. The reality is that past behaviors is often times NOT a good indicator of current character and behavior because bad experiences with past behaviors is exactly how people learn. So as a good rule of thumb, if they are not currently doing it, and haven't in the last 5 years, the evidence presented is as likely as not , irrelevant to a persons current character, because it is impossible to know the effects of those events on the individual.
which country where they in? Where were their servers? I assume this was illegal in their native country and they should have known better.
Of coarse, being a private military contractor isn't illegal, so I'm not sure why this should be. I would think the people who own the site should have known to put it in a country with a small king and include him in on the money.
So right and that is something just as much on the left as on the right. However, that doesn't mean any given policy when evaluated on it's own merits should be opposed simply because it comes from the side of the isle you don't stand on. To me if your data-sets aren't available for peer review, then basically no on can tell if you actually did science or just cooked the books and applied a convenient method. I don't see where 'confidentiality' should be a problem. It is easy enough to clean data and divorce it from specific individuals. The point is the data you claim to be using and the methods you claim to apply should be freely available for scrutiny by others. Including, not being combined by 'proprietary' processes that no one else can attempt to reproduce, or you aren't actually doing science. Nothing can be considered proved 'scientifically' without significant predictability. If you are choosing between doing science and making a profit. Your choice. You can't pervert the scientific method simply because it is convenient without expect to equally pervert the scientific credibility of your conclusions. Which is basically what this policy is attempting to address.
I mean , how do you remotely verify age. take a selfie and picture of your drivers license. I guess that would be a start, that would at least prove there was someone with a drivers license, your registered name and that looks something like you ( assuming you could access DMV records) . Still talk about a privacy nightmare. Maybe some kind of third party verifier would be better.
also, if the kids parent comes in and says he wasn't allowed to buy the candy , the store probably is required by law to take it back ( although they could probably keep the money as damages). The point being ANY transaction with a minor is very much and the merchants own risk because a minor DOES NOT have legal control of themselves or any of their property. So unless they see mom and dad are their and see them hand the kid the money there is probably a risk. It gets even dicier if a 10+ year old is sent to the corner store with mom's pin to pick something up ( as happens all the time). Mom / Dad can easily show up at the store and say the kid didn't have permission and expect visa etc to act like they would with any other (unauthorized transaction) of coarse the catch is their kid may wind up charged with theft in juvenile court if they do.
"The EPA has for decades relied on scientific research that is rooted in confidential medical and industry data "
Am I reading this incorrectly? To me this means the EPA is relying on data that is not publicly available for peer review. How can you even call it science if you data-sets are not available for peer review?
hmm... do you consider data retention a form of speech? What about account information? Or Tax id's should publishing those be considered freedom of speech or freedom of the press? Generally companies get in trouble for breaking data privacy laws. Is it really that much of a stretch to expect them to delete the data?
I think some simple tests are easy enough to apply:
1) does serve as to support or a form of political speech? ( or is it just hanging around because someone dumped it there).
2) Is the data being reported on a part of what is normally considered 'public record'.
I think if it doesn't fit one of those 2 criteria you should be able to require a company to delete all records of your existence and relationship with them from all databases.
Of coarse some of this can be handled through developing new social norms. For instance, is it unreasonable to expect your friends not to publish pictures of your children on Facebook? Personally I'd say it is rude at least without permission, even more so if they label them. ( not sure I'd go so far as to say we need a law against it, but there are many things that are wrong for which it is ineffective and or unwise to attempt to create legislation to curtail).
A 'right to be forgotten' i imagine would something more like a take down notice.
Companies make money by collecting information, who does that information belong to?
One possibility is the information belongs to the person it is 'about'.
So we could pass a law saying you 'either' you may publish no information about non public figures without their express permission OR
if requested you must delete all information you have retained from all databases ( and back ups) for a given individual.
I could see how that could get into constitutional issues , a balancing of free speech vs the right to privacy.
Of coarse, if we have such a strong right to privacy that the state doesn't even have the ability to prevent a woman from killing her child ( Roe vs Wade).
Then it would seem the right to privacy generally trumps the right to freedom of speech , unless there is compelling public interest or the speech is of an innately political nature.
That's what they said 10 years ago.
Some things facebook collects without my permission:
My name and the name of my family members when someone puts a photo up and labels it with names.
The location and time the photo was taken. Also, it has a collection of people who share the same photo and a list of
the things those people like and don't like , their political interests and where they live.
By making connections between the people and data-mining the photo's with my name, you can certainly find out things like,
locations of been, political events, people I associate with and love.
Everything needed, to stalk, harass or attempt to co-erase me into something you I otherwise might be unwilling to do.
( of coarse that was all Ok, when the think tanks that supported Obama were using it, now everyone is up in a tizzy because a group that helped the republics used it). Works both ways. If you keep and gather the data , someone will get it and use it.
I think a right to be forgotten law is more then overdue in the good old USA. Of coarse one things I've always wondered about that is how much data do you need to keep on someone so that you know you should not collect data on them :)
Interesting point, and unless anyone forget, after the republicans have passed a law allowing sites to be punished for hosting terrorist content, we can expect the democrats to classify anti-abortion and pro-catholic web sites and terrorisitic in their content, when they get in power.
Censorship is always dangerous, much better to monitor then sensor , then actually punish people when the break the law.
What it is first and foremost, is the human action responsible for each of us being here. Treating sex like a plaything is to disrespect every human being created by it.
There is no such thing as sex work with 'dignity'. Selling , what is naturally an act of intimate affection and bonding , that has it's primary function in the creation of other human beings is utterly and by definition disrespectful to anyone involved.