i confess i think the motherless moderators are chumps. i got "banned" for having a heated discussion with a jackass who reported me. that along with how they remove certain content makes me scoff at their "moral free zone" claim.

Who's the fucking idiot that doesnt know who Hannah Hays is? Living under a rock or what the fuck?

Why on earth would you report a Hannah Hays post lmao

So, I'm in a situation that has been fucking with my head for the better part of a year. As often as I try to just let this go, something in my subconscious wont let me!
I'm talking about a super cute 17 year old female co-worker that I usually work with 1-3 times a week. I'm a 25 year old guy and I work at a neighborhood convenience store with her. I don't want to sound like I'm creeping on this girl or something, she enjoys flirting with me and we are always talking and shes very comfortable around me. The flirting has gotten as far as I'll sometimes smack her butt or throw her over my shoulder and carry her around while she squirms. It seems to me that she likes everything I do. The last time we worked something happened where we were looking into each others eyes and she looked like she wanted me to kiss her. I wanted to badly but I didn't. I have a lot of fears about this situation.
I don't believe she would report me or something but still, her being 17 is an issue in itself.
But mostly I don't want to make things strange at work. I don't want to make a move and have her not go with it.

Any advice is welcome :P

I am happy to report that I have been trolling the live pages for hours and found little or no illegal activity tonight. You can all go to bed with your minds at ease. See you tomorrow night. I think you all know who I am. Just quietly watching.

Just curious whats going on with the board posts. Many of the ones I've commented on are getting 404'd for some reason.

I know the boards are a minor part of the whole system here, just wondering if you guys toss any that have been reported off hand (to save labor) or if something else is going on?

Thanks for all your good work

news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57552225-38/senate-bill-rewrite-lets-feds-read-your-e-mail-without-warrants/

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans' e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law, CNET has learned.

Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns, according to three individuals who have been negotiating with Leahy's staff over the changes. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.
Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

CNET obtained a draft of the proposed amendments from one of the people involved in the negotiations with Leahy; it's embedded at the end of this post. The document describes the changes as "Amendments intended to be proposed by Mr. Leahy."

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to "reconsider acting" on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy's original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an "adverse impact" on criminal investigations.

Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans' data "undercuts" the purpose of Leahy's original proposal. "We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents," he said.

An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said that in light of the revelations about how former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail was perused by the FBI, "even the Department of Justice should concede that there's a need for more judicial oversight," not less.

Markham Erickson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. who has followed the topic closely and said he was speaking for himself and not his corporate clients, expressed concerns about the alphabet soup of federal agencies that would be granted more power:

There is no good legal reason why federal regulatory agencies such as the NLRB, OSHA, SEC or FTC need to access customer information service providers with a mere subpoena. If those agencies feel they do not have the tools to do their jobs adequately, they should work with the appropriate authorizing committees to explore solutions. The Senate Judiciary committee is really not in a position to adequately make those determinations.

The list of agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for the contents of electronic communications also includes the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission.

Leahy's modified bill retains some pro-privacy components, such as requiring police to secure a warrant in many cases. But the dramatic shift, especially the regulatory agency loophole and exemption for emergency account access, likely means it will be near-impossible for tech companies to support in its new form.

A bitter setback
This is a bitter setback for Internet companies and a liberal-conservative-libertarian coalition, which had hoped to convince Congress to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act to protect documents stored in the cloud. Leahy glued those changes onto an unrelated privacy-related bill supported by Netflix.

At the moment, Internet users enjoy more privacy rights if they store data on their hard drives or under their mattresses, a legal hiccup that the companies fear could slow the shift to cloud-based services unless the law is changed to be more privacy-protective.

Members of the so-called Digital Due Process coalition include Apple, Amazon.com, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, eBay, Google, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, TechFreedom, and Twitter. (CNET was the first to report on the coalition's creation.)

Leahy, a former prosecutor, has a mixed record on privacy. He criticized the FBI's efforts to require Internet providers to build in backdoors for law enforcement access, and introduced a bill in the 1990s protecting Americans' right to use whatever encryption products they wanted.

But he also authored the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is now looming over Web companies, as well as the reviled Protect IP Act. An article in The New Republic concluded Leahy's work on the Patriot Act "appears to have made the bill less protective of civil liberties." Leahy had introduced significant portions of the Patriot Act under the name Enhancement of Privacy and Public Safety in Cyberspace Act (PDF) a year earlier.

One obvious option for the Digital Due Process coalition is the simplest: if Leahy's committee proves to be an insurmountable roadblock in the Senate, try the courts instead.

Judges already have been wrestling with how to apply the Fourth Amendment to an always-on, always-connected society. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant for GPS tracking of vehicles. Some courts have ruled that warrantless tracking of Americans' cell phones, another coalition concern, is unconstitutional.

The FBI and other law enforcement agencies already must obtain warrants for e-mail in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, thanks to a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010.

wow... you guys now have a "controversial" page. Doesn't this prove that you plan on doing nothing to the videos already reported? Some of these videos are no brainers and should be removed.

cant wait till this election shit is over with so The Daily Show and the Colbert Report can go back to normal.

I confess I kinda miss that "fucking reported" guy. whenever I saw his dumb face, i literally laughed out loud.

I don't own a gun, never needed a reason to (most of the time), but if I did, I DEFINATELY would not want to loose that right in the face of our oppressive friendly neighborhood government that has a excessively strong compulsion to maintain law and order no mater what the cost. If anything, I think we should fucking disarm our government!

So for those of you young anti-gun activists who are so but-hurt about the faults of humanity, here is a little tidbit for those of you that are ether too young or ignorant of history. Hell, I was even a kid when this shit happened.

Southern California State
Feb. 1968
3 dead, 27wounded

Jackson State
May 1970
2 dead, 12 wounded

Kent state
May 1970
4 dead, 9 wounded

Southern University
Nov 1972
2 dead, 2 wounded

After the Kent state shootings, the attorney general John Mitchell said there was no need to explore the killings because he knew in advance the causes couldn’t possibly be the national guard or the police.
The FBI investigation report subsequently proved that there were no shots fired by the students and there was grave culpability on the part of the guard.
Needless to say, Washington did nothing about it.

Throughout the ages especially on these last few years the economy has been going down. Job loss, layoffs either temporary or permanent, hours fluctuating from 0-40 and never being the same, or even just the higher costs of living that comes every year for prices are always rising and companies giving less.
And within these last few years some employers are looking into your credit report and/or credit score as part of your background check in order to even get the job. Why would they even need to know about your credit score in the first place if it's for wanting a job anyway? Credit score doesn't always mean dedication to pay bills on time, sometimes it is just the tough times where at first you were able to pay all your bills on time and after a while the jobs screw with your hours, your pay or even the job itself and you can't cut it anymore, therefore your score drops. Who wants to help put up a petition to make a law to pass where it is illegal for companies to look up your credit report/score just in order to get a job? Criminal history is one thing but how far are we going to let them screw us?