Ale Jaime basically discussed the fact that there are far worse matters than security cameras in public places, and I agree! Even though Neil M. Richards does not agree, I think security cameras in public is a great precautionary method that would benefit us more than harm us. It's for the greater good! If it's in public, I see no reason as to why not. People should know how to behave themselves in public and if putting these cameras around could promote them to be doing the right thing, then I am all for it! Maybe these precautions will make those who plan to do "bad" think twice. So far, I am OK with security cameras but when the government tries to infringe on our privacy at home, that's where I put my foot down. There should be a balance in which we would allow certain security methods while being able to rightfully reject other methods (like regulating the internet). That's right government, my home, my privacy, my internet. Please steer clear! In light of this, I am glad that Quantum internet is right around the corner.
So what is the Quantum internet, you ask? By definition, this is an internet connection that is completely secure and can not be tampered, decrypted, or intercepted. Impossible? Not so much. The Los Alamos National Labs has been using this system for about 2 years now! This system could be used to counteract internet monitoring by government under CISPA or the Utah Data Center. I just hope that one of these days, this breakthrough can become a useable product. If it ever does, then it's taxpayer dollars well spent. Basically, this kind of "more technology" could be the key to fight the nosy government when the balance is off.
Ever heard of the SOPA? How about the PIPA? Well don't worry because now we have the CISPA! Yes folks, the government has done it again! According to this news article, the government is trying to traffic the internet. And to think that government is suppose to serve its people. Tsk.
This news article basically informs us that this bill will allow corporations/companies to cyber-attack each other and individuals, risk free. They have access and can alter your personal information (ex. They require you to state your Facebook password.). No warrant? No problem. This act will protect the companies from getting sued. They will make sure we don't find out about it until it's too late.
Even though the bill seems ridiculous trough common knowledge, I can't believe the House of Representatives let this bill pass with an overwhelming vote of 288-127! What do these old, rich, white folks know about the internet anyways? At least the Senate gave us some closure by stating that they will not vote on the bill...for now. But when worse comes to worst, I hope that the President will back us up. The White House better veto this bill or else the Obama Nation will just
become an abomination. I know for a fact now that our rights to privacy is not protected by any of the amendments but the government shouldn't cross the line by playing "Big Brother." It's during times like these where I wished that they created a "midterm
reelection" for the rebellious politicians who get out of hand.
Why even create this bill you ask? "Advocates argue that such information sharing is required to ward off attacks in real time." I'm assuming that this has to do with the infamous Chinese hackers. But seriously, if the problem is the incompetency of creating a virtually "hack free" system, why take it out on the masses?! Why not divert the effort to research more ways of creating a firewall instead of micro-monitoring the cyberspace. In addition, if this is the government's effort to preventing terrorist attacks, I don't think that it's worth the trouble. I'm sure those sneaky bastards will find other means of communication anyways.
My colleague posted a commentary in their blog about the fact that TSA made a mistake on allowing pocket knifes on planes. To this I can agree. Although pocket knifes are useful during a survival situation, when we are in the comfort of a plane cabin, I do not see the use for them. When TSA uses the "if we allow pocket knifes, we can spend more time worrying over more important matters" reasoning, I think they are being illogical. By placing this restriction, TSA personnel must examine these knives to see if they qualify the requirements. To me, it seems like this would consume more time than just banning it in first place! All they have to do is find the item, confiscate, and throw. Instead of: find the item, measure its exact dimensions, make sure it meets guidelines, then either return it if it does or throw it away if it doesn't. Have fun waiting in line as the security officer whips out his ruler to measure the knife of the douche-bag in front of you. Isn't that the only way to make sure that the knife is exactly 2.36 inches? COUNT. ME. OUT. Lines are long enough as it is, please don't make our lives harder.
In addition, I also agree with Ale on the fact that "there is always the risk of misuse for a blade." Especially when there is unlimited duty free alcohol that is served in a plane. When combined, a pocket knife and alcohol could heighten the chances for disaster. A borderline lunatic might get the courage to preform the crime of his dreams. I mean, all you have to do is sharpen the dull blade, duct tape the thing up to create a lock, and voila! A makeshift weapon! Stab somebody in the throat during an international flight and you might have a chance in killing them. A good example of this would be the story of the student who stabbed his colleges with an X-acto knife like object and managed to wound them pretty well. (Is ammo shortage is getting pretty critical to the point that one has to think of other methods to commit a crime?) I guess we really do "have to look out for the little things that have the potential to become a big issue." These regulations should have not been approved in the first place. This small pocket knife is no match for the airplane but to us it is a threat to both our mental and physical well-being. Not looking forward to April 25. NOT. AT. ALL. What do you think? Am I just the only one that's being too paranoid?
"Barack Obama’s basic filibuster mistake." by Moe Lane, was aimed
towards the Republicans/conservatives. This commentary utterly discredits
Obama's presidential ability in the wake of the recent drone filibuster. The
commentary stated: "So… why did Barack Obama remind us that we've actually had some darn good wins over the last two cycles? – Rhetorical
question: he did it because he’s not actually all that good at either governing
or political street brawling." Unfortunately,
this statement only made me sympathize with the democrats because of their
handicap in both the house and senate. Republicans
have the majority in the House, while the Democrats have majority in the
Senate. But based on arcane filibuster rules,
the Republicans have control over the
Senate too! I wouldn't fully blame Obama for being bad at
governing but
I would blame the fact that he was never given a true chance. Of course
he did not do well in elaborating the drone subject but that does not
necessarily make him a bad President. With all
pathos aside, the filibuster became an eye opener to us, the citizens, on the
vagueness of the drone subject. There
needs to be some way to regulate the use of the drones through procedural
safeguards. Even with this in mind Moe Lane went on to say: “Last night was a win
that visibly invigorated right wing online activists all over the country. It
was satisfying. I kept reading people going on about how nice
it was to see their efforts have an effect on the debate – and, yes, it did.” Although this statement might seem all but credible, I would like a little more
elaboration with facts on the subject. What were the effects on the debate? Where's the evidence? John Brennan was still nominated as CIA Director
and no laws were passed to regulate
the safety of the US citizen against the drone attack. The subject
seemed to be shoved back under the rug. All the debate clarified
was the fact that the President had no rights to control the drone. So
did the conservatives really win yet? Can this still be truly called an
effect?
In my opinion, the war on terror is a lame excuse to keep our troops in the Middle East. Although at first it felt appropriate, now we are simply wasting tax money, troops, and time. Hopefully this sort of involvement will not happen in North Korea. For crying out loud, we have bigger things to worry about: our economy, borders, educational system, and etc. The list goes on and continues to grow! Recently, North Korea has been trying to flex their nuclear muscles. This incident troubled the minds of many. The editorial on USA Today discusses the approach the U.S. should take on this matter. I completely agree with their suggestion of staying out of this mess and letting China take control. We do not need to meddle with the situation and repeat our "nosiness" like we did in the Middle East. We just need to back up China when need be. I'm not ready to embrace a World War 3. As much as our economy needs it, America going all out on North Korea would be the last thing I hope to happen.
I wanted to put this out there for all to see. Recently, a 7 year old was suspended for his innocent imagination and 9 high school students were arrested for a food fight. What is going on? As a prospective teacher, sometimes I can not fathom the stupidity of the educational system around me. In the recent years, there has been no line drawn between school safety and school discipline. As a result, events like these promote the increase of "School-to-Prison Pipeline" phenomenon. Schools are no longer a gateway to opportunity. Instead, they can be compared to a stack of "chances" filled with the "go to jail card." What happened to the classical detention and counseling approach? Are the old-school methods to mainstream to follow in this changing generation?
I understand that the police are more involved in schools because of events like the Newtown shooting, Virginia Tech, and etc. but is it necessary for them to be involved this much? Children will always be children. And schools will always be a place to learn and make mistakes. If we deal with them like this, our future generation will turn into a mess that we created. What do y'all think?
In response to Ale Jaime's blog on "
