Rate My Cop.

Looks interesting, but there are no live buttons when I load it, so it doesn't work.

That site is idiotic.

You know it's just going to be a bunch of people who give their local police officers a bad rating because they got arrested.

It's also kinda sketchy to have a database featuring the names and locations of all the police offers in the US.

Snake6 wrote: I disagree with the site on general principal. However I don't want it taken down because that would just be paving the way for other sites to be taken down, thus violating Net Neutrality.

The question that brings up is if it could be puttig police officers in danger?

If it actually does, than it should be brought down. (though I'm personally not saying it does or does not.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Snake6 wrote: I disagree with the site on general principal. However I don't want it taken down because that would just be paving the way for other sites to be taken down, thus violating Net Neutrality. The question that brings up is if it could be puttig police officers in danger? If it actually does, than it should be brought down. (though I'm personally not saying it does or does not.

Its only displaying information that is readily aviliable from the police department. Even if it does put police in danger it should not be taken down by force, there should be a lawsuit and it should be handled in civil court. The government should not ever touch the internet.

It doesn't give anything other than the officers name, so what is the problem?

Most of the ones I read were fair reviews.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Snake6 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Snake6 wrote: I disagree with the site on general principal. However I don't want it taken down because that would just be paving the way for other sites to be taken down, thus violating Net Neutrality. The question that brings up is if it could be puttig police officers in danger? If it actually does, than it should be brought down. (though I'm personally not saying it does or does not. Its only displaying information that is readily aviliable from the police department. Even if it does put police in danger it should not be taken down by force, there should be a lawsuit and it should be handled in civil court. The government should not ever touch the internet. I must disagree. Though I think net neutrality is great, it should as with any right have reasonable limitations. There is a point (and I'm not saying that it is here) that the authorities must step in and shut a website down.

I disagree. Because once you shut one website down, you pave the way to get more and more sites shut down. It sets a precedent and once you do that it is very hard to reverse that precedent.

Snake6 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Snake6 wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Snake6 wrote: I disagree with the site on general principal. However I don't want it taken down because that would just be paving the way for other sites to be taken down, thus violating Net Neutrality. The question that brings up is if it could be puttig police officers in danger? If it actually does, than it should be brought down. (though I'm personally not saying it does or does not. Its only displaying information that is readily aviliable from the police department. Even if it does put police in danger it should not be taken down by force, there should be a lawsuit and it should be handled in civil court. The government should not ever touch the internet. I must disagree. Though I think net neutrality is great, it should as with any right have reasonable limitations. There is a point (and I'm not saying that it is here) that the authorities must step in and shut a website down. I disagree. Because once you shut one website down, you pave the way to get more and more sites shut down. It sets a precedent and once you do that it is very hard to reverse that precedent.

Other than susan's kiddie porn point which is oh so valid:

Think of it this way:

One day, the FBI discovers a hidden terrorist forum operating out of a server in the US.

This is a forum where every terrorist in the world comes to post where they live and what they are planning to attack next. There is no doubt that the shutting down of this website would hinder terrorist activity worldwide.

It is hidden in such a way that it is impossible to see any of the information displayed there. Also, any attempt do shut it down will result in the media being notified.

You find a way to shutdown the website. To avoid a public relations nightmare, the shut down would have to be done legally with a warrant. This would set a legal precident.

Do you shut it down?

Hades wrote: If "it is hidden in such a way that it is impossible to see any of the information displayed there," how did the FBI find it?

The information is hidden but the site is not. They know what goes on but not the specifics such as locations, events, names...

Don't try to argue semantics.

You Wont See Me wrote: Or they could just let it be and nab the terrorists since they all say where they live.EditCarls too quick

No they don't so no they can't.

Snake6. wrote: What we are talking about here is not a violation of the law, it is just a site that some people don't agree with. It is a first amendment problem, not a legal one. There are other very contreversial sites on the internet some with alot greater violations of privacy than this site. Should every site that is contreversial be taken down?

That's the distinction we were getting at.

I don't think anybody here is arguing that a site that is "controversial" but not otherwise illegal should somehow be disabled.  On the other had, if a regular off-line law is being broken on-line, the same rules apply.

Whether this site is illegal is arguably an open question, but has relatively little to do with the webbiness of the site.