Loss of Privacy

Two months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t strip search a student, but some school officials in Iowa apparently don’t like following the law.  A classmate reported $100 missing from her purse and school officials decided that a strip search of five girls was the best solution to the problem.

The classmate and a female counselor stood watch in the girls’ locker room at Atlantic High School as the five girls removed their clothing, lifted up their underwear, and in one case took off all her clothing, according to lawyers Ed Noethe of Council Bluffs and Matt Hudson of Harlan.

Strip-searching is illegal in Iowa schools.

There is so much wrong with this situation.  First, why was the classmate allowed to watch the five girls being strip searched?  Where does anyone think this is okay?  Second, not only has the Supreme Court already made their point clear, strip searching has been illegal in Iowa since 1986!

The school is denying it was a strip search.  Uhm, I hate to break it to you, but if a girl is naked or has to strip down to her underwear and then move said underwear aside, it’s a strip search.  The Supreme Court explicitly said that this action is a strip search.  State education officials agree with the Supreme Court.

The older sister of one of the girls said the teen took off her bra and underwear after specifically asking if she had to do so. She complied because she did not want to cause a scene, the sister said.

Make a scene.  It is illegal to force a student to do this and parents should instruct their children to make a scene.  It is never okay for anyone to search your belongings.  Make sure you tell them no and then tell them you want a parent or a lawyer before you’ll even think of complying.

Immunizations are a good thing when they have been tested and are safe.  Forcing children to take a vaccine that hasn’t been rigorously tested on humans is nearly criminal and highly irresponsible.  The hysteria over Swine Flu has led officials to go too far too fast without thinking about the repercussions of their actions.

While officials would need written approval of parents to give the vaccine, it is expected that the turnout will be high.  Even though Swine Flu is not as big as the regular flu, overreaction from everyone last Spring has helped convince people that a rushed, barely tested vaccine is the way to go.

350,000 people die in the USA each year from the common flu, yet no one is running around every years saying the world is going to end.

Please, everyone on Earth, calm the fuck down and think before you continue with your knee-jerk reactions.  When the vaccine has been tested properly and we know it’s safe, then we can get vaccinations.  Until then, stop acting like Chicken Little.

Hot on the heels of watching Australia discover that an internet filter is ridiculous and would never work, New Zealand thinks it’s a great idea and has begun implementing their own filter.

Remember, it’s not about child porn like they claim.  It’s about blocking whomever and whatever they like.

Then there’s ‘drift’. I know this is a dubious ‘slippery slope’ argument, but if you look at the legislation that governs censorship in New Zealand, nowhere is child pornography separated from other objectionable material. Customs already acts in cases of possession of bestiality material – why not filter for that as well? It’s clearly objectionable. And if you’re doing that, then why not the worst, most violent pornography as well, the kind covered by Britain’s extreme pornography law? In fact, why not everything already defined as objectionable?

All ‘objectionable’ material is banned. In deciding whether a publication is ‘objectionable’, or should instead be given an ‘unrestricted’ or ‘restricted’ classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:

• acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty

• sexual violence or sexual coercion, or violence or coercion in association with sexual conduct

• sexual or physical conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature

• sexual conduct with or by children, or young persons, or both

• physical conduct in which sexual satisfaction is derived from inflicting or suffering cruelty or pain

• exploits the nudity of children, young persons, or both

• degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person

• promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism

• represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.

Again, this law is far too broad and can easily be manipulated.  Then again, the filtering technology can’t even be used on IPv6 or over https.  It also can’t be used on Tor, FREENET, and WASTE.  So, tell me again, who are they really going after here?

Though most people who understand how the internet works knew this was a large waste of money, only now are child group organizations in Australia coming around to the fact that net censors don’t work.

The common internet users, as well as politicians, such as Conroy, believe that the internet is like television.  If you don’t want something to be seen, you simply block the content.  Many people believe that this will help to censor what children can see and hear.  Unfortunately, you can’t just flip a switch and eliminate what is on the internet.

In a joint statement with lobby group GetUp, both Save the Children Australia and the National Children’s & Youth Law Centre believe the resources could be better spent on law enforcement agencies battling to eradicate child pornography on the internet.

GetUp national director Simon Sheikh said the mandatory filter won’t work on most of the content it is intended to block, and that would be money down the drain…Mr Sheikh estimates the sum could fund 300 extra police officers to fight online child pornography.

If they had thought of this before implementing the idiotic censorship laws, they could have been fighting child porn for the past two years.

“The tens of millions of dollars that such a scheme will cost should instead be diverted to appropriate child protection authorities and police to prevent the abuse of children,” Mr McDougall said.

“It should go towards effective community-based education strategies that give children and parents the skills to protect themselves.”

“Educating children about safe internet use is a more effective and sustainable way of protecting them from cyber crime than the proposed internet filter,” Ms Petit said.

“Teaching children how to recognise and steer clear of inappropriate online content is a more proactive and powerful way to shield them from internet crime.”

Hey, what a great idea.  It’s not like the people against censorship haven’t been telling you this for years.  You must have come up with this all by yourself.

Is is possible that, somewhere in the world, politicians actually listen to people with the knowledge of a particular technology so we don’t waste craploads of money on idiot laws and stupid trial periods?  Massive, government censorship programs should always be denounced and protests should arise whenever a government attempts to institute one.  Never let, “It’s for the children,” be used as an excuse to curb your rights.