Archive for the ‘Privacy’ Category

Global recognition for sex toy freedom fighter

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Sex Hysteria reader and fellow blogger Maggie McNeil sent me a link to a HuffPo story about Sherri Williams who has opened the world’s first drive-thru sex shop romance store.   I have written about this before, but it’s clear that the newly opened  store in the Pleasures chain is acquiring high profile world wide attention with the story now being carried not just in the U.S. news outlets, but also around the world in places like the UK, Thailand, and One India.  It’s nice to see news from Alabama besides the latest prosecution of a high level state official.

The real story is, of course, that the sale of sex toys is illegal in Alabama and Ms. Williams fought a long hard fight with the help of the Alabama ACLU to try and get the law overturned.  The Alabama state government has a long history of injecting itself into people’s private sexual affairs, mindlessly conflating art with pornography, and generally embarrassing itself on a national scale by seemingly never having progressed past the middle ages.

As for the law:

…the law has a loophole that allows for the sale of sex toys that are needed for unspecified “medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement” purposes, and Williams jumped through it. Customers buying toys – items that can be used for sexual stimulation – fill out an anonymous form with 10 questions including whether they or a partner have difficulty with sexual fulfillment.

Anyone more than a few decades old, will remember the days when adult magazines and movies were sold in the U.S. with disclaimers claiming that they were for “educational purposes only” in order to thwart the puritanical anti-porn cops.  The Alabama legislature clearly misses those good ol’ days.   When it comes to iron-fisted sexual repression and the enthusiastic practice of hypocrisy, there is no place quite like Alabamastan.

The Great Dunkin’ Donuts Boob Scandal

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Dunkin Donuts is backtracking, denying, and otherwise obfuscating about a breast feeding incident at one of their New Jersey stores where the police were called in to quell the disturbance and restore order, morality, and modesty before the entire neighborhood descended into a quagmire of crime, corruption, and vice.

From a post at CafeMom.com:

“It finally happened. A friend and I were just told not to breastfeed in Dunkin Donuts because there are “other people there”. I was going to leave and just write a letter to Dunkin Donuts headquarters suggesting that they educate their employees better. The police were called, though.”

In a candid outburst, a spokesman for Dunkin’ Donuts declared:

“That’s a fucking crock of shit.  Those bitches are lying.  Employees called the cops because the mother changed the baby’s diaper in the store and we were terrified of being fingered by Amber Lyon of CNN for trafficking naked babies.”

In a brief written statement, Dunkin’ Donuts clarified things:

“We have no stores in New Jersey and wouldn’t put any there if it were the last place on earth.  It must have happened at a Krispy Kreme.”

Calls to the local police department failed to shed any light on the events, being instead connected to a standardized recording which dened any responsibility and claimed that all injuries, deaths, and property damage was caused by criminals who will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Disclaimer:  This post contains sarcasm and parody.

Airport body scanner reveals TSA’s tiny dick

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

This is from back in May, but it’s worth posting about anyway.

Apparently, a Miami TSA employee became offended at the comments made about his penis size by a supervisor during a training session involving one of the new controversial body scanners.  The angry TSA guy then confronted the supervisor in the parking lot and beat him with a police baton.

Local TV station investigates Chatroulette ‘risks’

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

Basically, this Springfield, Massachusetts affiliate decided to hop on the Chatroulette hysteria bandwagon and found…  basically nothing.  But that didn’t stop them from hyping it up.

Checking out Chatroulette actually leads to checking out a whole lot more of people than anyone should ever see.

And precisely how much of people should anyone ever see?  Being a member of profession that owes its very existence to the concept of free speech, exactly how much is too much?  Where would you, as a journalist, draw the line with regard to what other people are allowed?

While many people on the other side of the chat are fully clothed, some of them were online for something else.

Are you being intentionally ambiguous?

Of course you don’t have to stick around for the show if you don’t want to. All you have to do is hit “F9″ on your keyboard which instantly hooks you up with another person. However, there’s no guarantee the next chat will be any less obscene.

Nice of you to mention that only people who want to be there are ever actually on Chatroulette.  But it’s nice that you’re looking after them, sort of like a parent even though you don’t actually even know any of them and not all are children.

It’s also interesting that you’re now using the word ‘obscene’, although you’re still only vaguely implying that anything offensive popped up.

What’s worse, there are children mingling among the tens of thousands on Chatroulette. We found an 11 year old boy using the website. Chances are, he’s seeing the same things we did. Parents say, it’s frightening.

Wow.  You came across a child.  Just one?  And he apparently saw the same things you saw, which may or may not be anything at all.

Easthampton parent Laurie Medina says “It worries me and makes me nervous that someone could be trying to get to my kid.”

Springfield mother Debra Hubster says “Why would you want a little kid to see something like that. It’s scary. It’s gross.”

Well, that’s precisely why children have parents.  Parents have the option of tell their kids, “No”.  Of course, there’s always the option of dumbing down all communications on the internet (and everywhere else for that matter) to the level of an eleven year old…

But another man told us he comes on the site to meet nice girls… even “sexy girls”. When we asked him what he thought about young children being on the website, we quickly got “nexted.”

Heaven forbid that someone would be looking for sex on a social networking site.   Maybe he “nexted” you because he could see that you were cruising for material to hype the ‘dangers’ of Chatroulette in order to boost ratings.  He was probably there to socialize and was  assaulted by you rudely interjecting yourself into his business as part of your crusade.  Given the number of reporters doing the same thing these days, he probably has to weed through dozens of reporters to find anyone to “socialize” with.

While you may think Chatroulette is harmless since it’s people who don’t know who you really are or where you live, you’re wrong. Check out Chatroulettemap.com, a site full of photos of Chatroulette users right here in Western Mass and around the world. Essentially a stranger takes your IP addresses, a snapshot of you from their computer and posts it on an Internet map for the world to see.

Does it give your street address?  Your phone number?  Is it really any less secure than Facebook or Myspace or Google?  Or are you just trying to make it sound scarier than it really is?

The creator of Chatroulette claims he has been able to block new information from being added to the page. But, there is really no way of knowing whether or not that’s true.

Well, probably not for someone of your limited journalistic prowess…

Another anonymous young Chatroulette user we spoke with from Ireland says “You can talk with other people from other countries. And, see some boobs.”

And, as everyone knows, the sight of boobs is known to cause irreparable brain damage.  When I was a kid, I had to sneak a peek at National Geographic to get brain damage.  At eight I played doctor with a neighbor kid which, nowadays, would probably earn felony charges and a lifetime membership on the registered sex offender list.

I guess we should rejoice that the author didn’t refer to Chatroulette as the next crack cocaine, but it was characterized as being “addicting” (ie: fun).

Google ranks nations by their internet censorship

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

Google recently put up a list ranking world governments according to their demands for user data and data removal and guess what?  The U.S. ranks right up there with the UK and Brazil at the top.

That should come as a surprise given Hillary Clinton‘s remarks on the importance of keeping the internet free.  Of course, for most of us, there is nothing surprising about he contradiction.  Western democracies perpetually crusade in favor of censorship except they disguise it as being “for the children”.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

“Government censorship of the web is growing rapidly: from the outright blocking and filtering of sites, to court orders limiting access to information and legislation forcing companies to self-censor content,” Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote on the official Google blog.

[...]

The data does not include government requests for removal of copyrighted content or for the removal of pornography, which Google says it censors on its own. The report also doesn’t indicate whether Google complied with or challenged any requests.

It’s nice to see Google bring this discussion out into the open.  So much nicer than hearing about it after the fact as when the U.S. intelligence agencies illegally spied on American citizens with the help of the country’s major telephone service suppliers.  When the government intentionally operates outside the law as it did in that case, companies know immediately that failure to comply could be a costly proposition.   And if there’s anything that the Bush wiretapping scandal has shown, it’s that there are no repercussions when the government breaks the law, so there is no incentive not to do it again.

Viginia man convicted by a judge of indecent exposure in his own home is acquitted by a jury

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

Last October, Erick Williamson was arrested for indecent exposure in his own home when two women reported to police that they saw the man naked through his window.

According to the New York Times:

In December, a judge [Ian O'Flaherty] in Fairfax County’s General District Court convicted Williamson of misdemeanor indecent exposure, but imposed neither jail time nor a fine. Still, Williamson appealed his case to the county’s circuit court, risking a maximum punishment of a year in jail to clear his name.

I don’t know if I would have the balls to do that, but being convicted of a sex crime pretty much terminates any chance of a normal life regardless of the seriousness, so it’s certainly understandable that the guy would see even that minor blemish on his record as being an all-or-nothing proposition.

”This isn’t a case about being naked in your house. This is a case about intentional exposure,” [Prosecutor Marc Birnbaum] said.

No, Marc, this is about justice going off the tracks and the prosecutor that made it happen.  Laws against nudity are essentially a declaration that the human body is inherently offensive, a position that oozes of puritanical zealotry straight out of the Middle Ages and is totally devoid of even a hint of reason.

When Williamson stated that he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong, Judge  O’Flaherty compared him to John Dillinger who also “thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up.”

Nice work, Prosecutor Birnbaum and Judge  O’Flaherty.   You got your name in the New York Times and established your legacy for all eternity.  You might as well have just tattooed the word “IDIOT” on your forehead.

Today Williamson was acquitted by a jury the county circuit.

”It’s really a weight off my shoulders after these last six months,” Williamson said after his acquittal. ”I think (the verdict) kind of sets the record straight. It was an innocent action.”

It’s unfortunate that the state can bring this kind of misery and financial ruin down on someone’s head, call it justice, and then walk away with impunity when the case collapses.

Thanks to theagitator.com which has been following this story from the beginning.

Missoula bans bathroom discrimination.

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Not really.  According to the Missoulian, the city is considering an ordinance that would only ban discrimination against lesbian-gay-bi-transgendered (LGBT) people.

Slated for a public hearing April 12, the legislation would ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered folks in the areas of employment, housing and public accommodations, such as restaurants and hotels. It’s similar to some 130 such ordinances across the country that protect people based on “actual or perceived … sexual orientation, gender identity or expression,” but it would break new ground in Montana.

What is blindingly obvious to anyone with a brain is that almost every restroom in the country discriminates by sex.  They say right on the door, Men or Women.  The concept of “separate but equal” was dismissed by the Supreme Court s being unConstitutional as applied to race, but apparently not when applied to sex.  Why?  Because culture always overshadows reason and precedent when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

The fact that our culture demands separate bathrooms for males and females is an obvious indicator of our dysfunctional attitude toward  even the most routine of sex-related physiological functions.

But NotMyBathroom.com chairman Tei Nash said the chief concern is the safety of women and children in public restrooms.

Concern for the safety of women and children?  Wow, I bet no one saw that coming…

The answer to the LGBT bathroom dilemma is to give up a toilet etiquette based on irrational fear of the opposite sex  and start treating restrooms as restrooms instead of Men’s Rooms and Women’s Rooms.

Chatroulette, the latest threat to children

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

You can’t make it through a day anymore with hearing some fear monger ranting about how Chatroulette is a predator’s paradise.

They had a story about it on CNN today and I’m starting to come across more and more articles like this one that immediately raise the specter that Chatroulette is a matter for law enforcement investigation.

With every new technology there is a new crusade by the mainstream media and politicians that perverts and predators will harness it to destroy our children.   You can be sure of one thing, when internet filtering comes to “the land of the free”, the public will probably accept it even quicker than they have in Australia.  After all, it’s to “protect the children”.

Well, at least it might knock some of the sexting hysteria off the front page.

And in the porn detection category…

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

A company called Paraben is marketing a USB porn detection stick.  You simply plug it into the suspect computer and it scans the hard drives.

The Porn Detection Stick uses advanced image analyzing algorithms that categorize images as potentially harmful by identifying facial features, flesh tone colors, image back grounds, body part shapes, and more. With less than 1% false positive indications, your search for contamination on your computer won’t waste your time.

Emphasis is mine.   Definitely the perfect product for cops, employers, and moms.  And let’s not forget the companion Chat Stick and Sim Card Device which are especially handy for spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends.

Is the webcam in your laptop a portal for Big Brother?

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

It can be if you live in Lower Merion School District, outside of Philadelphia.

The issue came to light when the Robbins’s child was disciplined for “improper behavior in his home” and the Vice Principal used a photo taken by the webcam as evidence.

I assume the threshold for becoming a vice principle there must be pretty low if someone that ignorant of the concept of privacy can get the job.

I hope the lawsuit succeeds in making a deep impression on the idiots who thought that one up.  Unfortunately,  the actual government employees who have abused their powers and betrayed the trust of the public aren’t the ones who pay for such abuse of their position.  No, it’s the taxpayers who will get stuck with that bill.

First it was cell phones and now laptops.  And let’s not forget about the little black box in your car that can rat on you for speeding right before an accident.

This story was pulled from a comment over at the agitator.com.