What’s going on in the minds of legislators in GB.  Seems like the fancy with 1984 is running a muck in the queens parliament.

I mean, where’s my privacy, when I want it?  Why would I want to turn over evidence to the crown?  I guess the reverse argument is, “why do you need to hide this – if you don’t have anything to hide, why not show us”.  That reverse argument is ludicrous, as it’s an invasion of privacy.  I should not need to justify myself to anyone.  If you have something to accuse me of, do so in the proper channels.

The article I linked too, has a good argument as well.  What happens if one is on the receiving end of an encrypted communication, and does not have the key.  How does one prove a negative, being the argument – “how do I prove I don’t have something?”

I’m amazed at the incredible stupidity of some lawmakers.

GATTACA anyone?

We’re still a ways off from the gattaca scenario, however it doesn’t take much imagination as to the steps required to reach gattaca state.

If I had the choice, and ability to prevent my progeny from being inheriting a negative trail, I’d do it. Would I want to make my child blue eyed, blond haired, genetically modified creation? No.

The fine line is when uses their own genetic code or a correction, versus the outright modification of code. How does this effect evolution?

I see that this is no different then eugenics. I’m outright against people being sterilized to prevent procreation, but this form of eugenics, albeit the same in principal, I can accept.

The deeper question is why I can accept this. I am pro choice, but when the death penalty comes into play, I’m against capital punishment.

What differences would make one acceptable and the other not? I’m not pushing an agenda, I’m just asking a question. Some people may choose to accept both, or neither.

So this is where big brother – George Orwell’s 1984 comes true.  Im not sure if I should be scared or what.  But this is a great push towards a open source alternatives.  How soon would a cracker reverse engineer this backdoor and allow access to all your sensitive information?

The idea is great on paper at first.  When you realize the potential damages that can occur afterwards, it’s a pain.

The current methods of obtaining sensitive information does not tread on anyone’s rights.  Well, that’s worded poorly.  I mean it’s not trampling on anyone’s right.  It may step on them, but not trample.

With that said, how much fun will it be when you have a 10 year old script kiddie, reading your sensitive documents?  There are just some things you would rather have private.

Backdoors are a bad idea.  It’s a gapping security hole, that one would never have.  The potential damages that this may cause, should not outweights the public interests.

I wonder when a sanity check will come about.  If a religion stipulates “do not read”, does that mean everyone else has to follow that stipulation?  It’s for those people that that follow that religion to not read, but why should their beliefs infringe on everyone else that doesn’t believe in that religion?

I’m trying to see it from both sides. Islam forbids drawing of their prophet Mohammad. Western society allows and promotes freedom of speech and expressions.

The clash occurs when the two are put together. Why? The practice of Islam tradition extends to those that practice Islam. Forcing their views onto others is wrong.

The practice of using Cartoons, for the sole intent of inciting others is wrong as well. However, should it outweight people’s right out free speech and/or expression? Yes, if it incites hatred or violence,or within acceptable limitations.

When the religious beliefs of one group infringes on the rights of others, those beliefs should be left to those that practice that belief. For example, abortion is believed to be wrong in Christian society, but should those beliefs be propelled onto the rest of society. No.

The same concept should be applied to Islam. There belief that their prophet Mohammad should not be redrawn in any way shape or form, fine. If you are a practicing Muslim, you shouldn’t do it. What right does Islam have that says non-Muslim must not draw a curicature of Mohammad.

Christians should practice their religion, Muslims should practire their religion, Jews should practice their religion, Bhudists should practice their own religion.

Why does it seem that everyone must push forth their own agendas?

The crusades were wrong. Terrorism is wrong. The point is how to make things right… whoever has a solution and able to implement it, should win the Nobel peace prize.