Advanced stupidness

[rcgreen]

A leading spokesman for the Homeland Security Homeland Security Department was put on unpaid leave Wednesday after being charged with preying on a child though online sexual conversations with an undercover detective who was posing as a 14-year-old girl.

http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/stori...-00171263.html

Where to begin. Uh, how many guys have been caught in this same trap?
Listen moron. There are no 14 year old girls in online chatrooms
any more. they are all FBI agents. The fact that he works(ed) for
Homeland Security only adds to the comedy.

[dalek]

I watched a sting the other night by MSNBC, and they managed to catch a Homeland Security guy as well, on camera, it was priceless...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11103248/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1603838/posts

[cdkj]

It shows it all Here be warn the content is upsetting it's actual chats logs

[House929]

This brings up a very good topic that I have been wanting to talk about for a very long time. Just haven't been around or didn't feel like dealing with the cosmos BS.

Is it morally right for parents to bug their computers to see if their children are endangering themselves online?

I know everyone has watched one of those commercials... 1-4 children is sexually assualted online. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THE HELL THIS NUMBER CAME FROM... There is no way in hell this is at all true. Wait... maybe it is...

*BOB Slaps tinytim with his penis

ok... yea in that case maybe.

I am not avocating leaving children alone to fend for themselves, but I first believe it is an envasion of privacy and second just downright wrong. If someone is intelligent enough to type they are probably intelligent to type "no" or tell their parents. THere is far too much of an outcry to save the children in my opinion. I know I Have probably just upset everyone that lives in America, but it is true. Times have changed, but I remember being a child and I did not have to worry about being molested online. I had to worry about getting my @ss beat. @ss beat on the way to school, @ss beat by my dad. Or a million other things that somehow surrounded around my ass and someones foot.

CHildren are far too sheltered. Are we creating a society of children that will be forced to live and depend on their parents for the rest of their lives. I know this is an off the topic type view, but look at the increasing rate of adults living with their parents.

sorry bout the tangent it's just I believe children are not safe, but they do not need to be treated as if they are completely handicapped and unable to help/tend for themselves.

[Negative]

Whiz... I think your mental state is the best proof that yes, children do need to be protected from things like online predators and dads beating their asses... :/

[Aden]

Is it morally right for parents to bug their computers to see if their children are endangering themselves online?

Think of it this way. I set up the computers in my house therefore I claim the right to be the System Admin. What I say goes so if I want to filter things I'll do so at my will. (or... my wifes)

[morganlefay]

House929

You obviously dont have children...


You know what I REALLY hate.....

Is someone telling me how to raise my children....specially people without any.

BOB Slaps tinytim with his penis

WTF is that supposed to mean


Heres some cosmos BS for yah

...dont like it...dont come....no ones gonna miss ya

MHO of course

MLF

[nihil]

Is it morally right for parents to bug their computers to see if their children are endangering themselves online?

I am not sure exactly what you mean by "morally", but it is certainly a parent's prerogative to do so if they wish...................they paid for the computer and they pay for the internet connection, the electricity, the insurance, the board & lodging.................

They may also be paying for the child's education..............I can only speak for the UK but even if the school is government funded, the uniforms, equipment, field trips and the like certainly are not!

What I am saying is that in the situations I am aware of the "parental controls" are usually to ensure that the computer is being used for the purpose it was purchased, which is usually to further the child's education. And that is not being used by stupid dungheads to download illegal material that could well cost the parents dearly. I don't know of any parents who totally forbid recreational use of a computer, but I know of quite a few that monitor the amount of time spent and nature of these activities.

Even if the child was at no risk from predators, many parents would not want them spending an inordinate amount of time in chatrooms and online gaming, to the detriment of their studies.

Anyway, television is censored in a lot of places so that certain content can only be screened after a certain time and/or there are parental warnings about content suitability. And many parents do not let their children stay up all hours watching crap on TV.

The cinema is controlled with films being certified for certain age groups.

If you get a decent job with an IT orientated outfit you will have to sign an AUP, and your activities WILL be monitored. You are being paid to work, not to mess about.

Let's face it our lives are monitored and controlled, so the sooner you get used to it, the better off you are.

Anyway, I don't think that parents are responsible for catching many "internet predators".........this usually seems to be the result of law enforcement agencies' "honeytraps"

That actually makes a lot of sense as most parents would not know what to do in the circumstances and may well warn off the perp, or at least contaminate the evidence.

Once again, I can only speak for the UK, but if you are a minor you actually don't have any right to privacy. Hey, you don't have a vote, so why should lawmakers care.

I honestly do not believe that the issue is about children's use of the internet as it is about getting these slimeballs out of circulation before they do something for real and you see yet another kiddy's picture on your milk carton.

Just my £0.02

[gore]

Originally posted here by Negative
Whiz... I think your mental state is the best proof that yes, children do need to be protected from things like online predators and dads beating their asses... :/

You can't spank your Dad kids anymore. They call child protective services and they put you in jail for an ass whooping they needed anyway.

As for "little girls" 14 year old girls are about as "innocent" as Michael Jackson. Take that however the hell any of you want.

[cdkj]

you can't spank your Dad kids anymore. They call child protective services and they put you in jail for an ass whooping they needed anyway.

There is a diffenence between spanking and abusing