4 ms·

If by favoring free communication over the internet you mean "my email will be private", I think you can safely assume large majorities will be in favor of it.

jellicle 15y ago
Not at all. If the question is "Should the government be able to access email to track down pornographers and terrorists?", the answer is that 99% of the population is in favor of it.
- dantheman 15y ago
  That's quite the claim and I don't believe it for a second.
  - jm4 15y ago
    The greater point is getting lost in the BS statistic. Make no mistake; the debate could be skewed any which way if you start with the right question. There was an episode of "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!"[1] where they talk to a pollster who does this for a living. He does a few demo polls where he basically starts by saying what result he wants and then asks the question that will produce exactly that. 1. Season 4, episode 9 "Numbers"
  - GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
    Should the government be allowed to stop you in the middle of the street and ask you to strip naked and cavity search you on the spot to ensure you don't have a bomb somewhere on you or in your body so that you don't walk into times square and blow the place up along with you. Ponder that. I doubt 99% of the pop will agree to this. Sure its maybe 1 step up from email. However some people would agree with what I just said because of fear. Fear is powerful. We must not let it control us.
  - d0ne 15y ago
    I'm with ^
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  "Not without a warrant."
jm4 15y ago
I am not so sure. We have seen this before. It goes something like this:"What's the problem with trading a little privacy for security? I don't have anything to hide." These people who have nothing to hide because they have never done anything wrong have ceded their privacy and rights at every turn. Why would the internet be different? Well, people are very protective of their email, that's why. Email is the key to a person's online identity and should be guarded like one's wallet or house keys. But wait until the children are brought into the debate. "Of course, everyone knows _you_ are legit, but there are predators creeping around in the seedy underbelly of the internet. These sexual predators will prey on your children through email and social networking sites. We need safeguards in place to ensure that predators are not able to operate freely on the internet and thus ensure your and your family's freedom and security." Those predator shows on MSNBC where they basically entice some disturbed person with a made up fantasy, parade him in front of the cameras, talk about all the what-ifs and then arrest him only to have him show up on the next episode reinforces this. Aside: It drives me bonkers when the host says, "You came here to meet a 14 year old boy. What would have happened if we were not here?" I'll tell you. Absolutely nothing. Because there was no 14 year old boy in a chat room looking to meet 45 year old child molesters and there was no 14 year old boy waiting for him in the house. There are smart people- good parents- who will eat that kind of crap up. They are the kind of parents that are involved in their children's lives. They help them with homework and know their friends and their friend's parents. They talk to their children about risks and staying safe. These are the kind of parents who have the least to worry about, but also the ones who will argue most passionately in favor of policies like this.
- GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
  You are referring to Entrapment: If the authorities did not entice you to commit the crime, would you have? The point is in some cases the answer is yes, pedophilia is one of those cases. This sort of legal issue has to be dealt with with police-prostitutes picking up johns and then arresting them after payment. The problem is that most people don't realize that you cannot solve complex problems with oversimplified solutions. The people are presented with "its safer if you give up this liberty because we can catch an extra pedophile" when the implications to the lost liberty is far greater than originally thought. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin The same quote keeps coming up over and over and over by one of our founding fathers. And for damn good reason. Because people ignore this, and don't realize what they are doing.

jellicle 15y ago

Not at all. If the question is "Should the government be able to access email to track down pornographers and terrorists?", the answer is that 99% of the population is in favor of it.

dantheman 15y ago
That's quite the claim and I don't believe it for a second.
- jm4 15y ago
  The greater point is getting lost in the BS statistic. Make no mistake; the debate could be skewed any which way if you start with the right question. There was an episode of "Penn and Teller: Bullshit!"[1] where they talk to a pollster who does this for a living. He does a few demo polls where he basically starts by saying what result he wants and then asks the question that will produce exactly that. 1. Season 4, episode 9 "Numbers"
- GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
  Should the government be allowed to stop you in the middle of the street and ask you to strip naked and cavity search you on the spot to ensure you don't have a bomb somewhere on you or in your body so that you don't walk into times square and blow the place up along with you. Ponder that. I doubt 99% of the pop will agree to this. Sure its maybe 1 step up from email. However some people would agree with what I just said because of fear. Fear is powerful. We must not let it control us.
- d0ne 15y ago
  I'm with ^
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
"Not without a warrant."

jm4 15y ago

I am not so sure. We have seen this before. It goes something like this:"What's the problem with trading a little privacy for security? I don't have anything to hide." These people who have nothing to hide because they have never done anything wrong have ceded their privacy and rights at every turn. Why would the internet be different? Well, people are very protective of their email, that's why. Email is the key to a person's online identity and should be guarded like one's wallet or house keys. But wait until the children are brought into the debate. "Of course, everyone knows _you_ are legit, but there are predators creeping around in the seedy underbelly of the internet. These sexual predators will prey on your children through email and social networking sites. We need safeguards in place to ensure that predators are not able to operate freely on the internet and thus ensure your and your family's freedom and security." Those predator shows on MSNBC where they basically entice some disturbed person with a made up fantasy, parade him in front of the cameras, talk about all the what-ifs and then arrest him only to have him show up on the next episode reinforces this. Aside: It drives me bonkers when the host says, "You came here to meet a 14 year old boy. What would have happened if we were not here?" I'll tell you. Absolutely nothing. Because there was no 14 year old boy in a chat room looking to meet 45 year old child molesters and there was no 14 year old boy waiting for him in the house. There are smart people- good parents- who will eat that kind of crap up. They are the kind of parents that are involved in their children's lives. They help them with homework and know their friends and their friend's parents. They talk to their children about risks and staying safe. These are the kind of parents who have the least to worry about, but also the ones who will argue most passionately in favor of policies like this.

GrandMasterBirt 15y ago
You are referring to Entrapment: If the authorities did not entice you to commit the crime, would you have? The point is in some cases the answer is yes, pedophilia is one of those cases. This sort of legal issue has to be dealt with with police-prostitutes picking up johns and then arresting them after payment. The problem is that most people don't realize that you cannot solve complex problems with oversimplified solutions. The people are presented with "its safer if you give up this liberty because we can catch an extra pedophile" when the implications to the lost liberty is far greater than originally thought. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin The same quote keeps coming up over and over and over by one of our founding fathers. And for damn good reason. Because people ignore this, and don't realize what they are doing.