Should forum mods limit access to exclude gov't IPs from gaining access?

moriar · Feb 15, 2013

David - no, it would be stupid to ban the .gov's .

Have in plain sight is better to have, if you ban it. You will give the notion that "we" are up to no good.

Also, alot of people have government positions, or heck just regular military folk that want to browse the sites while on downtime.

I would say this is a 1/10 on Ideas.

davidmcbeth · Feb 15, 2013

moriar said:
David - no, it would be stupid to ban the .gov's .

Have in plain sight is better to have, if you ban it. You will give the notion that "we" are up to no good.

Also, alot of people have government positions, or heck just regular military folk that want to browse the sites while on downtime.

I would say this is a 1/10 on Ideas.

Of course, anything said in a public forum could be used against you in court, right? This idea is a 10/10 ...

moriar · Feb 15, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Of course, anything said in a public forum could be used against you in court, right? This idea is a 10/10 ...

All it would require is for me to hop on public wireless and back to looking at this site unimpeded.

1/10 again.

Seattleite · Feb 15, 2013

Doesn't seem like a good idea to me...

davidmcbeth said:
Maybe ... if they had functioning brains ... which they don't ...

why not block? make them go to starbucks ... more time there, less time writing idiotic legislation

... but then I don't write legislation (idiotic or otherwise), seldom go to any Starbucks (but I get a few calls to meet there), and my brain (which actually does function from time to time) insists that I use my home I'net account to participate in all sorts of forums outside my usual work at "the office".

It would really piss me off if I were blocked from any site I enjoyed and felt I gained knowledge from simply because of where I posted from... even if it is allowed by my bosses.

But wait, this is such a radical notion... I wonder... did I miss a screening process when I joined the forum? Should I have checked an are you now or have you ever been/I/we/them/us/other box? If so, I would gladly bow out and hit the road. Or:uhoh: maybe, sometimes, the "spy" in me takes over and I start reading all sorts of books, magazines, and propaganda (good and bad). Even though I have copies of "Intelligence Wars" (Powers) and "espionage's most Wanted" <sic> (Mahl) at my bedside just to, from time-to-time, reminisce the footnotes I had a hand in, I have little spare time to spy on what I think are like-minded folk.

Geez, I hope you're not all spying on me... then SMERSH:cuss: to you, smersh:cuss:, I say...

Bonus point to whoever knows the date and President that abolished the use of a subversive organization list (i.e. have you now or ever been...)

Is this really a frequently asked question? If so, maybe the moderators should weed us, or them, out being as, at least some of us/them have no functioning brains!

davidmcbeth · Feb 15, 2013

moriar said:
All it would require is for me to hop on public wireless and back to looking at this site unimpeded.

1/10 again.

Hello, these gov't employees are not THAT smart....methods for getting around a blocking is not a reason not to block..otherwise no site would block, right?

Still a 10/10 idea....those who think otherwise should go back and read ALL their postings ... ever posted anything that could be read as being in a negative light? Almost all can...

davidmcbeth · Feb 15, 2013

Seattleite said:
Geez, I hope you're not all spying on me... then SMERSH:cuss: to you, smersh:cuss:, I say...

Your bosses are, I'm sure of it .... SMERSH:cuss .. funny

Grapeshot · Feb 15, 2013

Seattleite said:
--snipped--
Bonus point to whoever knows the date and President that abolished the use of a subversive organization list (i.e. have you now or ever been...)

First the Smith Act then the "list" from Biddle/FDR 1941 to Richard Nixon 1974, about mid year I think.

Then there was J. Edgar Hoover's list and of course who can forget Sen. Joe McCarthy and his House Internal Security Committee.

moriar · Feb 15, 2013

Grapeshot said:
First the Smith Act then the "list" from Biddle/FDR 1941 to Richard Nixon 1974, about mid year I think.

Then there was J. Edgar Hoover's list and of course who can forget Sen. Joe McCarthy and his House Internal Security Committee.

I added David to the "List"...

well by list, I mean "My Hrmmm List"

davidmcbeth · Feb 15, 2013

moriar said:
I added David to the "List"...

well by list, I mean "My Hrmmm List"

Well, you have seen folks write stuff and people recommend that they remove the post, right?

Why make it so easy for the gov't to gain such information?

Shortsightedness ... when a post IS used against you then you'll be saying "I should have also pushed for the banning of IPs of government agencies"...

I think its a good suggestion ... the moderators have not stated a position so maybe they are considering it in earnest.

Grapeshot · Feb 15, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
--snip--

I think its a good suggestion ... the moderators have not stated a position so maybe they are considering it in earnest.

That is because Moderators do not establish such policies. The site owners do that as is their right as private property owners.

The primary reason for blocking countries/IPs has been those that produce an abundance of spam. Many behind the scenes things have been done to reduce this, but it is a matter not just of being pro-active, but still reactive to new threats.

While not speaking for them, IMO they are very aware that politicians (federal, state & local government), media, antis, fence sitters et al, as well as members of the choir here, regularly peruse these threads. OCDO is open for those and more to read and consider. I think the preference under different conditions would be accessibility to the people of the world.

Because of the very public nature of this forum there is an awareness and sensitivity to tone, attitude and verbiage of posts along with the stressed need to abide by the rules.

Do I think that governmental IPs will be blocked? Definitely not in my lifetime. And that is the end of the story.

WalkingWolf · Feb 15, 2013

Grapeshot said:
Nothing to see here - keep on movin'

Nobody here but us chickens.

Seriously people, what is there to hide? We are LAC going about our normal everyday lives while exercising our rights. We are educated, dedicated, friendly people. We believe in the legislative process and work within the court system for the benefit of our families, communities + our state and country.

All that glitters may not be gold, but it sure is shiny......and I like shiny things.

Let the sun shine in!

Agreed, this is a open site, hopefully filled with honest, intelligent, liberty loving individuals. Why would we be scared of the government seeing that.

If it were a paid site, which most us would probably object to, or just not like, then the owners could keep the site to members only. Tough choice there.

Don't say anything you do not want Uncle Sam to see, or at least attempt to keep your anonymity. In most cases I hope they see what I type.

OC4me · Feb 15, 2013

It would be nice if certain threads could configured as 'limited-access' by the original poster who may decide to allow only specific trusted members participate on an invitation-only basis or otherwise limit access to members having a certain minimum post count under their belt, etc.

I often see discussions over potential and on-going litigation being discussed all to openly.

Nothing would be fool-proof. However, as a poster, I can see the value of some sort of semi-private or private discussion area. PMs are good but only for 1-to-1 conversations.

Just my 0.2 cents.

Seattleite · Feb 15, 2013

Grapeshot said:
First the Smith Act then the "list" from Biddle/FDR 1941 to Richard Nixon 1974, about mid year I think.

Then there was J. Edgar Hoover's list and of course who can forget Sen. Joe McCarthy and his House Internal Security Committee.

Yeah, I was thinking Nixon 1n June 1974 was the most deliberate. He was hanging around the oval office and while waiting to leave he had a lot of stuff to clean up.

eye95 · Feb 15, 2013

No.

Another stupid idea.

They'll get in if they want to. Blocking them only makes us look fringe. Remember, the idea is to NORMALIZE OC. If you ain't on board with that idea, you ain't on the right board.

Superlite27 · Feb 16, 2013

I wonder how many cars have had the seats ripped out and tossed all over the side of the road while a swarm of government agents hover around it in adrenaline fueled anticipation......

.....all because some poor sap tried to hide the BDSM/furry/anorexic porn magazine he just bought under the seat when the lights went on behind him?

If you think you are being watched, chances are, you're right. Now that you know you're being watched.....

What would YOU do if you were watching someone and they blinked/startled/ shoved a bunch of stuff under the seat and tried to look innocent?

The outrage we express when asked by officers, "If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't mind if we searched you, right?" is righteous indignation at a tactic used to incriminate the guilty. It doesn't mean that the tactic is unsound. It simply means we are aware that we are innocent, and as an innocent person, we have certain rights that prevent us from being searched without warrant.

Blocking an IP against government access.

HA! Nothing would scream, "Please rip the seats out of my car because I might possibly be hiding 200 pounds of cocaine." louder to every government agency in existence.

They are probably "monitoring" right now.

Try to "hide" all the innocent banter, lawful discussion, and perfectly acceptable conversations happening here and it is GUARANTEED it will be watched, recorded, and files will be kept on every member and their entire thread histories in the adrenaline fueled anticipation of catching the one person here who might actually be hiding something worth finding.

It's not me. You can look under my seats all you want........just as soon as you show me a warrant.

Of course, this forum isn't exactly "under the seat". Since it is a PUBLIC forum, posting here is kind of like throwing your BDSM/furry/anorexic porn magazine up on the dash.

moriar · Feb 16, 2013

Superlite27 said:
I wonder how many cars have had the seats ripped out and tossed all over the side of the road while a swarm of government agents hover around it in adrenaline fueled anticipation......

.....all because some poor sap tried to hide the BDSM/furry/anorexic porn magazine he just bought under the seat when the lights went on behind him?

If you think you are being watched, chances are, you're right. Now that you know you're being watched.....

What would YOU do if you were watching someone and they blinked/startled/ shoved a bunch of stuff under the seat and tried to look innocent?

The outrage we express when asked by officers, "If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't mind if we searched you, right?" is righteous indignation at a tactic used to incriminate the guilty. It doesn't mean that the tactic is unsound. It simply means we are aware that we are innocent, and as an innocent person, we have certain rights that prevent us from being searched without warrant.

Blocking an IP against government access.

HA! Nothing would scream, "Please rip the seats out of my car because I might possibly be hiding 200 pounds of cocaine." louder to every government agency in existence.

They are probably "monitoring" right now.

Try to "hide" all the innocent banter, lawful discussion, and perfectly acceptable conversations happening here and it is GUARANTEED it will be watched, recorded, and files will be kept on every member and their entire thread histories in the adrenaline fueled anticipation of catching the one person here who might actually be hiding something worth finding.

It's not me. You can look under my seats all you want........just as soon as you show me a warrant.

Of course, this forum isn't exactly "under the seat". Since it is a PUBLIC forum, posting here is kind of like throwing your BDSM/furry/anorexic porn magazine up on the dash.

''

+9999

Grapeshot · Feb 16, 2013

Superlite27 said:
--snipped--
Try to "hide" all the innocent banter, lawful discussion, and perfectly acceptable conversations happening here and it is GUARANTEED it will be watched, recorded, and files will be kept on every member and their entire thread histories in the adrenaline fueled anticipation of catching the one person here who might actually be hiding something worth finding.

It's not me. You can look under my seats all you want........just as soon as you show me a warrant.

Of course, this forum isn't exactly "under the seat". Since it is a PUBLIC forum, posting here is kind of like throwing your BDSM/furry/anorexic porn magazine up on the dash.

Hear ye, hear ye! BRAVO!

davidmcbeth · Feb 16, 2013

Superlite27 said:
It's not me. You can look under my seats all you want........just as soon as you show me a warrant.
.

So you support banning IPs of gov't agencies?

protias · Feb 18, 2013

If you think the government doesn't have the tools to get in anyway, you are fooling yourself. Heck, we've seen a number of trolls recreating accounts and getting back in with pretty rudimentary tools.

WalkingWolf · Feb 18, 2013

moriar said:
No, but your ip should be banned as you provide nothing but a disservice to this community.

*** *** * ***** --edited by moderator--

Not that I always agree with David, or he can't speak for himself, IMO your post was totally uncalled for and very troll like. Wasn't there a proverb about casting stones.

Should forum mods limit access to exclude gov't IPs from gaining access?

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

New member

Banned

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member