Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Day 2 journal entry
Please discuss the role you think the federal U.S. government should take in regulating what is shown/posted on the internet. What are the key issue at stake in this debate? Please delineate them. What was the movie Untraceable's obvious stance on this issue? Please explain. Also, do you think live televised or video-taped executions will ever be reality in the U.S.? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Day 2 Journal
The movie "Untraceable" took the stance that what is streaming on the internet should be filtered and monitered. This stance can be argued for reasonings just like the movie. If content is completely free to be shown unedited, then unfortunately we have those in our society that are evil and mentally disturbed and will push it past the limits. This of course forces people to view things that they may not want to or it may expose younger people to images they shouldn't see.
On the other hand, when the government steps in and starts telling us what we can and cannot do, it becomes an infringement on our first amendment right of the freedom of speech. By that right we should be able to say and expess our views in anyway at anytime. This of course, as we know, is not the case in our society.
It becomes an issue that lies in the gray area. No longer are our rights simply black or white, right or wrong, they become something that must be guarenteed and protected and at the same time bent in order to serve and protect together in harmony.
I believe that the federal government should step in and take complete control of the web. People are too stupid to think for themselves and to regulate their own viewing habits and the habits of their children. We should also ban smoking and force car manufacturers to stop producing cars that can go faster than 60 MPH. Everybody should also wear paper suits when flying with no carry-on luggage allowed at all.
The issue at stake is freedom of speech which isn't really an idea that you should be able to be perverse or crude and act like an ass doing whatever you want. It was the idea that you should be able to express your opinion about what your leaders are doing without being persecuted about it.
Untraceable stance was that the internet should be limited. I disagree with this. I believe that the inernet should be left as an unregulated entity. The premise is that we are able to exchange information world wide. Regulation of that ability would stifle that flow and put an end o the usefulness of the internet as a means of exchanging ideas, even if some degenerate manages to get his manifesto online.
I hope we never have televised or video taped executions televised. It serves as no deterrent as was shown with public hangings in the 1800's west and the current public acts of brutality in Iran. Criminals commit crimes because of the probability of success, not usually onsidering the onsequences.
The movie "Untraceable" had me conflicted. I don't beleive the government should censor us, but unfortunately we don't have enough sense to censor ourselves or our children. There are certain things we don't need access to.
I think the fact that killer actually had the auidence particpate, and the auidence did is a strong arugment for the government to monitor what is available to us on the internet.
Net neutrality is the idea that users should be in full control of what is viewed on the internet.
I do not endorse in a belief that the government should step in and regulate content for us.
At the very core, freedom of speech is the major issue. It is the one right that separates our society from most.
Day-to-day, we may find ourselves confronted with ideas and opinions misaligned with our own. We may see clips depicting disturbing events but really, it comes down to the individual and what they can and cannot tolerate.
The movie Untraceable obviously took the stance that we should have regulation-because we are nothing more than base and demoral beings with a curiosity that is never satiated.
But because of this, I would hope that executions are never televised, we are desensitized enough--desensitized to not even have the desired effect.
Untraceable
Jennifer, who is a internet crime expert, gets caught up with a web site that conducts violence and murder live on the internet and the more people that login to the site, the faster the victim will die. It starts by when she gets an anomalous tip on a website and she checks it out and it’s a cat getting tortured live. She tells her boss, but he just brushes it off because it’s just a cat. They continue on like nothing happened, but then the website comes back with a guy hung up on a wall bleeding with chemicals running through his veins making him bleed more. They try and hurry and find out where it is, but since the website is untraceable, they couldn’t do anything and he died. They start looking for whoever did this. They came up with clues, but they came up all dead ends. The criminal lures the victims in by finding out what they are into and catches them off guard. The cat got snatched off the yard of the owner’s house. The first guy got shocked and pulled into a van at a basketball game. The next victim on his list got lured into his house by a auction item on the internet. He was the next to go on the website. He was getting burned with heating lamps one by one for how many people logged onto the site. He ended up dead. They couldn’t figure out what the connection between all the victims were at all. They knew it was local because all the people that were murdered were local and nobody outside the United States could access the site. They set up a press meeting about the site, but Jennifer didn’t want that because it will just promote the site, but her boss did it anyway. Jennifer’s best friend at work was the criminal’s next target. He was called by him using a voice disguiser and lured off. He was tortured in a tank of water with battery acid slowly going into it for how many logged on. Before he died, He used Morse code with his eyes to tell the people something. It came out to be “our suicide.” Nobody knew what it meant. Later on, Jennifer figured out it was from a video on a CD of a man committing suicide on a bridge. She then found the connection of the victims. They figured it was him and went to his house. They found his basement and they thought it was about over because they knew who he was even though they didn’t get him. While Jennifer is driving on the same bridge, her truck cuts off and he kidnaps her. He takes her away and she becomes the next one on the site. The detective figures it out that he took her to her own basement and tries to get there in time. By the time he gets there, he’s already dead because she shot him about 10 times.
I thought the movie was pretty good. I was confused about the connection of the victims thought. I knew it couldn’t have been random, except maybe the cat. It all made sense once all the things came together. The guy was smart, but he was putting his talents in the wrong place. I think he was just a psychopath because there was no reason to do all of that because of the media posting his fathers murder on the television. It was just showing the news. If his father didn’t commit suicide in the first place, none of that would have happened. He shouldn’t be mad at the world for posting it, he should be mad at his dad for leaving him the way he did and doing that to himself. None of the people deserved to be tortured, because all of them were either just doing their job or nothing
The movie was about the freedom of the internet and how one guy was killing people using a video stream to the internet.
I don't think the government should step in to regulate the internet. Of course I don't want things like what happened in the movie to happen but it shouldn't be regulated.
Also I don't think there will ever be live executions showed on U.S television.
While the Internet has its roots as a US Military system, its growth to a worldwide link of information has caused some to become concerned. Should the government step in and censor what we area allowed to view? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
The Internet represents many things, from a place for entertainment, to the world’s largest library and art gallery. As the largest venue for people to express themselves, I feel that our government should not mandate what we are and are not allowed to use it for.
There are exemptions to my support “net neutrality” however. I do not believe in crimes against children, for instance. Nor do I feel that it should be an open door to copyright infringement. I also support the government’s continued support and protection of it’s citizens.
While the movie “Untraceable”, in typical Hollywood fashion, glamorized the extraordinary ability of one person’s exploitation of the Internet. It did also show the government in its role of citizen protection. I have no problem with the continued upholding of our laws in any form. The Internet has paved an new highway for us to patrol, but why create new laws, why not just uphold those that we have in place, adapting our methods to fit the new environment.
Untraceable was a decent movie but I do not think the killer would have gotten away with so many murders. I believe he could of gotten away with one, if any, then would have gotten caught. The government should have controls on the Internet for situations like that; I believe the government already has a system in place to stop something like that.
As far as limiting the internet, the government should not have a big say because of freedom of speech. However, I believe the government should protect people from content on the Internet. I don't think they should ban porn, posted videos, and stuff like that, but should make laws that let the parents control the content that could be viewed on the family computer. For example, porn sites should have a special extension like .xxx instead of .com. The unique extension would make it easier to block those sites because parents could just block all sites with the .xxx extension. Additionally, more extensions could be developed for sites such as you tube and other sites that contain videos. This would make it easier for parents to control what can and can be seen on their computer. I believe it is up to the parents to control what their kids see.
February 14, 2008
Blog - Movie: Untraceable
Regal Pembroke Mall Cinema 8
I rate the movie a two and a half star.
The suspense was there, but only moderately and the acting was good.
The movie did hold my attention, the scene where interesting and exciting at times, but yet not predictable.
This is a believable thriller movie that could possibly happen when a psychopathic killer causes a heinous act of amerceable torture and death towards its captive victim. I don’t believe a psychopathic kill would go to such extreme measure to kill its victims the way the movie depicted, because of the cost for equipment, finding a suitable location to carryout the elaborated crime, and the messy clean-up afterwards to hamper the CSI team from finding incriminating forensic evident.
The idea of displaying this type of crime on the Internet is an interesting concept I hope would never happen. Plus the movie gave a brief insight about an investigating service of the FBI, when it comes to investigating Internet crimes.
I believe the U.S. government should take an active role in what is posted over the internet. The internet is becoming a major tool for criminals today. Pedalfiers are constantly preying on children and scammers are forever trying to still your credit card information.
The movie Untraceable was excellent. I agree with what the FBI was doing. The time and resources that was spent to catch and apprehend criminals that lurk over the internet possibly saved consumers from becoming victims of internet thief. In regards to the movie, It also help the FBI catch a murderer.
I believe that the reality of live executions is very much a possibility. I believe that to be true for the simple fact that the beheading of captured soldiers and civilians were broadcasted all over the news and the internet.
i believe as in untraceable that murders will be taken over live net. there are many way's to route around to other people where the live feed cant be reached. though our government does monitor and assist the internet publishers, we should still have the right to a secure and private network. as far as we know the government has already monitored or looked at files on our page at least once.
The Internet is a worldwide medium for communication and the transfer of information.Therefore, restrictions such as censorship shouldnt be place upon the internet.we should be able to practice self-regulation while using internet.
There are sick and mentally disturbed people in our society and unfortunately, some of them are using internet.they will use every chance they have to get access to the internet for many negative purposes. We cannot sensor internet just because we have some of these sick people in our society.we need to educate ourself and our children on what to surf and not to surf on the net. This is our responsibility not government's.
The movie "Untraceable" was a decent movie,however, i don't think that the killer would have gotten away with so many murders.Atleast, i would like to believe that our government already have a better system in place, to stop that kind of activities on the internet.
Post a Comment