Slashdot Mirror
Gonzales Wants ISP Data Retention To Curb Child Porn
$RANDOMLUSER writes, "The AP is reporting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Banking Committee today and called for Congress to require ISPs to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography. 'This is a problem that requires federal legislation,' Gonzales said. He called the government's lack of access to customer data the biggest obstacle to deterring child porn. 'We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information,' he said." Gonzales added that he agrees with a letter sent to Congress in June by 49 state attorneys general, requesting federal legislation to require ISPs to hold onto customer data longer.
I'm all for catching the distributors of child pornography. I hope they find all the freaks exploiting these children.
However, I know that they never stop there. If they have the information they won't use it for just investigating cases of child pornography. Furthermore, I don't trust their techniques of catching the predators.
Many years ago (1998, or 1999) there was a crackdown on the alt.binaries.erotica.* groups to catch distributors of child pornography. Instead, what they did is arrest hundreds of people victimized by the distributors. Sure, many of those hundreds were intentionally seeking pictures of children. But many others were falsely accused because they blindly downloaded "all new articles."
The way this happened was quite simple... Much like the spambots of today, these distributors taint many, many groups with their filth. It's a sort of scorched earth policy, perhaps. Regardless, I don't trust the government to know the difference between the incidental versus the intentional.
The primary reason being the weapon they would potentially wield against people that choose to speak out...
"Oh, look, in 2002 you downloaded DSC_1000.JPG from a newsgroup, and it was depicting an unclothed child... LOCK 'EM UP!"
Privacy protects the innocent too, you know...
My ZooLoo
"Child Porn"
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
We all know that this is just a ploy so they can spy on you... "Please, think of the children!" seems to be the most abused reasoning for spying... it's just bs that anyone would buy this. Maybe if they told isp's to record anything that looked like anything related to kiddy porn it would be ok, but this is absolute bullshit.
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
..."we respect civil liberties, but..." you know the next part is going to be bad.
Its almost like "I'm not a racist, but..."
Instead of fighting child porn, we should encourage children to have responsible, fulfilling, non-impregnating sex. Of course, we should also allow videos and images to be broadcast in an uncensored way, including videos of children having sex. Of course, I think children should get crappy jobs, too.
Child Porn was the boogie man for the period 1997 to 2001
Osama was the boogie man for 2001 & 2002
and finally Terrorism is the boogie man for 2002 to 2006
I'm not sure what the next boogie man for the 2007 season will be but my prediction is "rogue dwarf planets"
(gotta watch them plutons!)
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Interesting bit of Newspeak there...
You mean, like how I respect a particular religion but don't believe in it?
Yeah. Sounds about right,Speedy Gonzales.
So is the government going to subsidize the storage system for all those records to be stored, that could amount to massive and ever growing amounts of data as more people start surfing the tubes.
Gee why do any actual police work, like investigations, and going under cover... welcome to the new police state...
Especially abusing them for more political power.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Which was the hold-out state?
Why does "harmonization" always mean bringing everyones laws into line with the one which provides for the most disadvantage to the most people?
FGD 135
The Four Horsemen of the Infopocalypse
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
Child porn is just an excuse. If protecting children was really the point, the proposed law would limit all subpoenas of data retained under this law to child porn cases. The law doesn't do that, ergo they are lying through their teeth.
- Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
Number 6: Where am I?
Number 2: In the Village.
Number 6: What do you want?
Number 2: We want information.
Number 6: Whose side are you on?
Number 2: That would be telling.
We want information... information... information.
Number 6: You won't get it.
Number 2: By hook or by crook, we will.
Come to think of it...
Number Six: Everybody votes for a dictator.
Chessmaster: "You must be new here. In time, most of us join the enemy - against ourselves."
I guess it takes a village to raise a Prisoner as well as a Child.
The thing I miss most about the Republican wing of the Party is the wing that asked questions like "What would the Democrat wing of the Party do with these powers?"
I just wonder how long the Democrat wing of the Party that's currently asking these sorts of questions will last when they're handed power in 2008?
everyone loves having all their Internet records made available to Commissar for spying on our personal lives, because we are all in loving with our Comrade Bush and his Politburo and know they would never lie to us!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Retaining records of web access is going to cost millions of dollars at the largest ISPs since these records over two years will amount to pedabytes of information. Many ISPs do not even have the records that Gonzales is looking for since gathering this kind of extensive information usually requires a transparent proxy of web traffic. I suppose that ISPs could save DNS records only but that's trivally easy to avoid by using other DNS servers and probably nowhere near enough big brother for Gonzales.
I'm appalled at the invasion of privacy. Practical side of this bad idea is very troublesome as well. Gonzales must think there is data retension fairy that will do all of this for him.
But that's not what this is about, and I'm insulted (if not surprised) that he's being so blatant.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
As long as they tack on an amendment that the information retained can only be used in child pornography cases*. But of course that would go against their true motive, spying on ordinary Americans.
*You say "What about terrorism?" well add another line that includes "threats of imminent terrorist acts". Of course the Republicans would cry foul, declare that such a line is too vague and doesn't give the agents in the field the right tools to fight terrorism. Which means "anyone could be a terrorist so we must spy on everyone".
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Yeah, it's true, the government has been using child porn to repress civil liberties for years. Hell, just look at Hackers.
Only those who distrust the Party need to have Privacy, comrade!
Are you questioning the God Emperor?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information
IOW, they respect civil liberties until it affects them too.
Have you read my journal today?
Nah. They've got enough problems recovering untold millions than to worry about kiddy porn/civil liberties.
Who was the lone holdout state attorney general who didn't sign on to this executive branch power grab? I'd like to consider moving to that state.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
whenever I hear a government official (any official, from any government) use the word "harmonize", I want to go hide. It usually means "let's get this area of really bad law in sync with this other area of really bad law." Gagh.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
We all know that this is just a ploy so they can spy on you... "Please, think of the children!" seems to be the most abused reasoning for spying... it's just bs that anyone would buy this.
And their logic is always "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about". To which I say, "If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to spy on me?"
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
(Waay off original topic)
I am so tempted to create a guild with a dwarven rogue, and rename the GM slot to Planet. I could even name the Dwarf with Pluto, or Eris. Eris might make more sense, come to think of it.
Sorry...yeah...Gonzales is A.G.
Geesh, I don't know where I got "Senator" from...I guess I'm reading too fast or something
oh, wait, I know a good excuse: I'm Canadian
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Did anyone see the "Protecting Children Online" link they have on the left? http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/protecting_children_ online/framesource.html
It's not surprising, but always disheartening to see what levels they will stoop to to get some more readers. The paranoia that they are feeding people is disgusting.
The growing threat of child porn? Is it really that big of a threat?
I've surfed the tubes and found some pretty perverse pr0n, but I have never run across any child porn. I have absolutely no clue how anyone could even go about finding the stuff. And yet, Gonzalez and the gov't claim it is a huge threat. A threat so great that we must intrude on the privacy rights of all law-abiding citizens. Do we have any real evidence to back up the claim that child porn is such an enormous threat that we must take extraordinary measures? No, we don't.
We have to take the government's word for it, because no one is allowed to independently research child porn. To do so would violate the law. I've heard that the amount of new child porn material has increased in the past few years. Conversely, I've also heard that all of the child porn that's out there is the same old material that has been circulating around for 20 years. But we have no way to know for sure. The government keeps a database of child porn for themselves, and prosecutes and harshly punishes anyone that so much mistakenly downloads an image in their browser cache.
This push by Gonzalez to mandate ISP data retention smells very fishy, especially considering that we, as citizens, have no way to verify that child porn is as serious a problem as he claims.
Woah, woah, woah, there, pal. You're confusing Orwell and Herbert. What the hell does the Tyrant have to do with Big Brother?
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
The worst about all this is, that it has never actually been shown that CP is bad. Or at least, that it is any worse than the adult version.
The main issues stated are:
1) It hurts children to make it.
2) It causes people to want the real thing.
The first is obviously not what they are after, since:
1a) They go after the consumer with full force, when this helps little. (It only helps the content creator only if he sells it.)
1b) They go after voyeuristic photos and "model" shoots. The amount of actual CP where the child is hurt has never been shown to be significant.
The second reason, has never been proven either:
2a) The is an equal and opposite force that people would release tension through this, instead of going after the "real" thing.
2b) Pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder, so "normal" viewers will shouldn't be affected by it anyway. Only someone who already wants it, and doesn't know it, would be affected. This is most likely not a significant amount of people.
As such, i believe the real reason is not any of those given above. But until it is delineated, and the laws address it by protected people from harm (that is, make sure there is an actual (potential) victim as opposed to regulating behavior) there should be no barring of CP different from the Adult version. And, as for invading privacy, that's is going to take a lot more doing than this vagueness.
Have you read my journal today?
I have came up with a 100% foolproof way to stop child molestors.. which is to stop having children.. no children = no (future?) child molestors.
:)
there I said it.
They want retention so they can continue to expand the domestic spying program. Simple as that.
Child porn is just the catch phrase they can use to ram it through congress.
I can see the campaign ad -- "Congressman X voted against protections from child porn!"
Nuh-uh, no way, señor.
Are there any tools that can be used to mask real browsing habits by randomly sampling and following links from sites like Google News or Wikipedia? It would be nice to have something like that going 24/7 so that your actual traffic would be drowned in a sea of noise. It would also considerably raise the cost of the invasion, required by law or not. I don't like my ISP looking over my shoulder to begin with. That big brother wants to share the view is disturbing but not much different from the existing corporate invasion.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They're hardly even trying to come up with believable lies any more. They think they can just throw around the "protect the children" meme and we'll all just line up like good Christian Soldiers.
There are a few boogiemen that never seem to fail those that would take our freedoms. Terrorists, Kiddie Porn, Welfare Moms, Liberals and Bill Clinton are some of the most reliable. A few decades ago it was "Satan Worshippers" "Communists" and "Castro" that were the standbys.
Anybody else sick of this BS?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why stop with ISPs and child porn?
I think all communications with attorney generals, congress persons, cabinet members, etc should all be retained, reviewed, and utilized when corruption is evident. That'll keep our children safe!
Now that disk crashes are against federal requations, will all ISPs be required to use mirrored raid arrays? This sure sounds like another "unfunded federal mandate" to me! However, if this is the only way we can put companies like AOL and MSN out of business, I'm all in favor of raising their records retention costs far above their gross income!
http://www.atg.wa.gov/releases/2006/Documents/DRLe tter.pdf#search=%22gonzales%2049%20state%20attorne ys%20letter%22
The actual list has 49 signatures, but not all are states. DC, American Samoa, Puerto Rico are on there.
If I'm correct, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, and Nebraska didn't sign.
This administration sure like proposals which put the funding burden on businesses. Wonder how much everybody's internet access fees are going to be raised because of this. Your government in action. They're gonna invade your privacy and make you pay for it.
I thought this was Dilbert, not Orwell ... OK, except for the lack of PHBs ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. create a list of sites that they find are exploiting children
2. put together servers and software that can monitor ISP lines
3. provide servers and software to ISPs at no cost
4. ISPs only report on those that are going to those sites.
5. haul in the asses of those who are guilty of visiting said sites
OR
1. create a list of sites that they find are exploiting children
2. take down those sites
3. everyone is happy
Yes, I know there are a lot of those sites that are 'offshore' but I can assure you, it isn't from experience.
I really love how the Government is using Child Pornography so much as a tool to compromise everyone's privacy.
"We need to put cameras in everyone's houses because ummmmm it will help prosecute Child Pornography activists or something."
What they want is the ability to target an individual for political reasons and then try to find anything they can to use against them. We are moving toward a society in which Fourth Amendment protections are as quaint as the outlawing of torture.
I mean, most children featured in porn films get to survive and tell their stories, while oppressive governments tend to kill, maim and imprison people. Besides, how are ISPs going to log any HTTPS traffic with good stuff?
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr= lang_en&safe=off&q=kiddie+porn it works...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
So, how many cases of child porn were there (in Gonzales estimation) that couldn't be prosecuted because it took two years to get a warrent?
I mean are we talking tens? hundreds? thousands? more?
-- Should you believe authority without question?
future? We curb civil liberties by doing all this stupid shit to "think of the children," but we fail to think of the childrens futures where they will live in a restricted society. Why don't we start thinking of the childrens adult lives and how fucked they will be living in a fascist society.
Beacuse you never know when the rules might change, and we want to look for transgressions you didnt even know you were going to someday regret.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Abu Gonzales has been pushing ISP data retention since at least early this year, and he's invoked all the usual boogeymen to get it passed: terrorism and kiddie porn.
He's tried:
-meeting privately with the major ISPs to ask them for voluntary compliance
-getting Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner to introduce a bill that went nowhere.
-somehow persuading Qwest to endorse legislation
I don't mean to pimp Cnet. Search any tech news site for "ISP data retention" and you'll see the history of this.
This is the guy who thinks it's swell to send every "suspected" terrorist to Syria to have them tortured. He'd better get some more planes because those datapiles are gonna give him a lot of "suspicious" activity. You guys better make sure you don't accidently click on the wrong newsgroup/google result/fishing link/porn spam.
"We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information".
This from the guy who advised Bush in the FISA wiretaps?
How about you stop pulling the "terrorism" card and "child porn" card, and tell us why, in no uncertain terms, you need to keep prying into our lives. What evidence do you have that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such additional monitoring will help stamp out child pornography? What justification do you really have for your stance? I'm talking hard numbers ... how many cases have been successfully prosecuted (i.e., resulting in prison terms) for child pornography as a direct result of ISP data retention? Wiretapping (in spite of the billions spent upon it) has not justified the cost in terms of viable prosecutions, and I see no reason to think this will prove otherwise. And I'm very serious, Mr. Gonzales, partly because your current rationale makes little to no sense whatsoever, and mostly because I just don't believe you. If you want to do this to us, for God's sake prove it to us, make us understand why we need to give up still more of our precious Constitution. I would fully expect that the nation's ATTORNEY GENERAL would be capable of presenting such a case to the American public using honest facts, not trigger-words, emotional ploys and outright fiction.
... certain rights were temporarily rescinded during World War II and were re-established afterwards. Maybe. I've not seen sufficient evidence, as presented by my official representatives in government or their appointees (are you listening, Mr. Gonzales?) that convinces me of this.
... so be it. That's why we have appropriations committees. But wholesale monitoring of the entire Internet-using population?
A bit disappointing, really.
Maybe we do need to give up some civil liberties, given the current state of affairs with international terrorism
Furthermore, I absolutely do not accept "child pornography" as good and sufficient cause to invoke yet another massive spy campaign against the American public. If the FBI needs more funds to go after these bastards
I think not.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
At first glance all these things sounds great, after all who doesn't wanna stop creepy pedophiles from trading kiddy porn. Most everyone could get behind that. Then you start to think about it some and realise that it will require a massive amount of storage (and a massive workforce to control it all), but sure harddrives are cheap. Then why stop at that, why not just open all letters and listen to all phonecalls while we are at it, I'm quite certain that some pedophiles talk on the phone or send things via non electronic mail to each other to. Heck lets build transparent houses out of glass so we can see everything that goes on inside.
When they find one, or get the same information required for a regular wiretap then yeah sure tap that persons internet access all you like but some general all encompassing SAVE ALL data idea is just crap and quite possibly ripe for abuse.
And that is insightful!
for the theocratic wing of the Republican party.
Why aren't the ISPs who spread child porn via Usenet prosecuted? They host it on their servers, along with pirated movies, software and music.
Nerdcore Hip-Hop
...don't know exactly the reason why you discriminate against someone of another race. In other words, simple ignorance. However, when you DO know why you are discriminating, it simply becomes a bias. So stamp out racist ignorance, and find a GOOD REASON to discriminate! And there are plenty.
"Of course everything concerning child porn tends to err on the side of vigorous prosecution, but then it's a pretty horrific crime, so that's understandable. "
Just because something is horrific doesn't mean we should throw out all rational thought. I mean I have people in my life who were affected by molestation when they were children, and I would love to throttle the ones who did it, BUT i would rather we as a society think about this rationally and err on the side of caution rather than execute people on the spot for happening to look at child porn.
The parent makes some good points which seem to be dismissed out of hand (and not modded very high due to it's nature) because we are dealing with children here...
Isn't this the whole thing we are rallying against? Broad sweeping generalizations and laws enacted "because of the children"?
I understand that terrosist, child molesters and other monsters should be put away but to make every American Citizen suffer under these rules for no reason is un-constitutional. The Amendment IV is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures without warrant. This is just like Nazi Germany that all Jews, Blacks, and others not of the "superior race" where child molesters and they were the worst vermin on earth and prosecuting them to death was justifable. I don't want terrorist, child molesters and other monsters run amok but this is not the reason to go break the constitution we have been given as American Citizens.
...ability to collect any useful data since anything passing through the ISP would be Encrypted.
This kind of policy making just goes to show how out to lunch the government is on technology. Plus, nevermind the arguement that it is a ridiculously costly endeavour to collect all data all broadband users suck from the internet... and even if it could be done, who the hell has time to parse through all that data?
Mr. Government person, you need a serious reality check... like a brick upside the head.
What the heck does child porn have to do with the Senate Banking Committee?!?
yet another example of fascists using an emotional issue (child abuse, terrorism, etc) to "justify" erosion of rights. it works because anyone who opposes it, even on perfectly reasonable grounds (like civil liberties) can easily be dressed up as a paedophile or terrorist supporter.
Our country wouldn't be in this mess if more people understood that there's no such thing as an "exception" to a fundamental right.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's most likely a sign of the struggle the governments are having with monitoring net traffic. There's simply too much traffic for them to store and analyze. Therefore they are attempting to get the analysis to occur at the ISP level, which would actually make things possible for a "catch-all" fishing expedition. I think the analogy is with Google's rejection of providing lists of seach requests.
If the government can get the ISPs to monitor what's happening then it decentralises the work load and makes it more manageable. I'm guessing that we will see more of this strategy in the future.
In order to protect children from physical or sexual abuse by their parents I suggest we have video cameras installed in every home. In every room. The video feed can be fed into Government servers. If there is an allegation of abuse, the video files can be reviewed. We can trust the honesty and integrity of the Government. To suggest otherwise is treason.
I'm not very up-to-date on this topic, but would someone please explain to me why there is such a sudden need for this legislation? Has MJ started putting videos of him molesting little boys onto YouTube, and the Bush administration is out to catch whoever looks at it? I'd like to know more about how they plan to analyze the data, and decide who goes to a secret CIA prision, and who doesn't. Perhaps it will be based on how much money you gave the Republican Party last election. I don't know, I'm all for stopping pedophiles, but I don't really trust the government to capture and handle the data in the appropriate manner. I think I'd rather have my freedoms and not have the nanny state watching my evermove to ensure that I don't do anything they wouldn't want. Oh no, that might include going to Cuba on my non-American passport! The less freedoms Bush revokes the better off we'll all be in 2009. The next thing you know, the government will be siding with the big corporations, and we'll all have to pay outragious amounts of money to look at /. because Net Neutrality got shot by *** Cheney. This is like the Australian bill to ban all pornography sites unless the user specifies otherwise. I don't need the government making my decisions, I'm capable enough to do that myself.
The government needs you to please yield your freedoms and rights of privacy: - child porn is a cover for finding terrorists. we can't tell you that, or we would blow our sneaky cover against the terrorists. - to stop the other religous facists from threatening our freedoms. - to keep our children safe from child pornographers - to help with the long fight againts drugs not approved by the FDA. - because America is about more than just freedoms - because our religious facism is better than their religious facism - the scary terrorists are going to strike again unless we can read everyones email - the best way to fight a war against bad people is to attack all countries that disagree with us. - the best way to promote freedom and peace is to spy on everyones phone and email and attack the bad countries - terrorists are funded by diamond sales and oil profits. This means that we should step up our efforts against porn, online gambling and drugs. - government and corporations have a hard time taxing porn, online gambling and drugs. Therefore they are bad. - we need to fight against bad things and bad people, because christianity, I mean American is about more than just freedoms. - hey, you would be worse off under the taliban, right?
Pedophilia is not something what was invented when the internet came out. It existed before it (ask the greeks!) and will continue to exist as long as there are humans alive. Prosecuting child porn helps little to none. The real child molesters get off by abusing kids and, consequently, making porn of it. Stopping distribution will not stop the criminals. If anything, will make them to remain quiet about what they do, making them harder to find. And IMHO, putting in jail a pedophile who never harmed anyone (instead of the real offender), because he downloaded some pics off the internet, seems quite unfair to me. As everyone else, I see this as a scheme to gather more information of people. Yes, they will probably catch two or three poor bastards who got some pics, just to justify the hundreds of thousands of people they collected personal information on. But what strikes me the most is the passiveness which with the nowaday american takes these kind of news. They forfeited a lot of individual and privacy rights so far. And as new stuff such as this comes out, all they do is whine and let them get away with it. Would this have happened 200 years ago, Bush's head would be hanging on a stick in front of the White House. Americans got fat, lazy, weak and/or afraid.
I don't see how tracking everything on the internet fights childporn. If every owner of a camera had to register their camera to use it, or if anyone who hooks it up to the computer after taking pictures could be tracked, you could figure out exactly where the pictures came form.
However, if it's just about searching all ISP's in the world, I just don't think that it's believeable that it would be for child porn. Child porn comes from cameras, not the internet itself, so whoever is putting these pictures on the internet, these are the individuals who should be tracked and arrested. If you just search ISPs, how does this do any good? Every picture taken by a specific camera should have indentity information inside it. No one should be able to annonymously take a picture and post it on the internet, stop child pornography at the source, otherwise it's not going to do much good. Data retention might tell you who has looked at child porn, or even who originally uploaded it in some cases, but this does not lead anywhere unless you can get to the asshole who actually commited the crime of creating the child pornography.
So this law would be like trying to go after file sharers individually, in the end it gets no where because unless you know where the files came from you are chasing 1s and 0s. So I think the best idea is, all pictures taken by a digital camera and uploaded onto a computer, should REQUIRE indentity information, it should be encoded into the images themselves, if we have to we can make camera owners register their cameras, otherwise what good does this law do?
I think, I'd rather Gonzales just come out and say we need to have surveillance on the internet and that for national security reasons, all ISPs must have retention. I don't think the child porn is believeable enough, yes it's emotional enough but unless they can show people how this law protects children, it just does not connect.
This made me laugh out loud. If only I had mod points right now.
If a law is going to be passed on data retention, it should be passed in the opposite direction. Data retention past 30 days (ie, a billing cycle) should be illegal. Search engine results that link any personally identifying information should be illegal (this includes you, Google). Etc. Punishment should be $1000 per log entry older than 30 days.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Legalize gambling. The chips will clog the tubes preventing porn from passing though them.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
This is not a wise move to debate this now. I'm not sure why they choose to display this before an election. The NSA should be handling stuff like this, and these types of security measures can be handled in the hardware level, hell if you want, put the data in the CPU of the PC itself, or whatever. The point is, the internet is huge, it has almost unlimited traffic, so the only time something like this would make sense is for datamining.
I'm not an expect on datamining, but why don't they just come out and say they want to conduct datamining for surveillance purposes? When the child porn stuff is brought into it, it's like, "we want you to let us monitor the internet, to protect the children" instead of "we want you to let us monitor the internet, to protect your national security". People have seen this before with Google, the internet learns very quickly, I'd say the people online have an on average high IQ.
I wonder if anyone has thought about what might happen if another party gets control of government or the republicans decide to go the nazi route and start hunting down people. Yeah it seems like it is way out there, but the nazi's spread the 'fear of the jews' in people, the republicans are spreading the 'fear of liberalism and gays'...
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
"Arriba! Arriba! Arriba!"
I agree. I'm all for catching the scumbags who exploit children.
However, there's a question that keeps nagging me every time I see mentions of this so-called "child porn" in the internet. What's exactly that "child porn" people keep mentioning? I get hundreds of unwanted emails every day. I have lost count of all the pornography I have seen in the internet. Yet I never saw one single picture of a child engaged in sex!
Well, I have seen plenty of images that some people call "child porn", but those are merely pictures of young women who could be of any age between 15 and 30 with shaved pubic hair and small breasts. Anorexic women who have their pictures taken when they are 25 years old do not count as "child porn" in my book.
Here's one simple rather provoking concept: what if the true perverts are smart enough to avoid putting the images of their acts on the internet? How many videos of bank robberies and drug sales get published in the internet? What makes you feel that paedophiles would be more stupid than other criminals?
I think the police would be more successful in catching perverts if they tried to investigate the typical acts of perverts instead of insisting on that rather sickly curiosity about the acts of honest internet citizens...
When will politicians stop using the "think of the children" method to remove rights and liberties from the taxpayers hand... oh yeah, when it stops working...
%s/child porn/witches/g
%s/child pornography/witches/g
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Congress should require
Internet service providers to preserve customer records, asserting that
prosecutors need them to fight witches.
Testifying to a Senate panel, Gonzales acknowledged the concerns of some
company executives who say legislation might be overly intrusive and encroach
on customers' privacy rights. But he said the growing threat of witches over
the Internet was too great.
"This is a problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales told the Senate
Banking Committee. "We need information. Information helps us makes cases."
He called the government's lack of access to customer data the biggest obstacle
to deterring witches.
"We have to find a way for Internet service providers to retain information for
a period of time so we can go back with a legal process to get them," he said.
Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller have met with several Internet service
providers, including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, Comcast Corp., Google Inc.,
Microsoft Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc.
The law enforcement officials have indicated to the companies they must retain
customer records, possibly for two years. The companies have discussed
strengthening their retention periods \u2014 which currently run the gamut from
a few days to about a year \u2014 to help avoid legislation.
At Tuesday's hearing, Gonzales said he agreed with the sentiment of 49 state
attorneys general who in a June letter to Congress expressed support for a
federal law that would require longer retention of customer records.
"We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more
information," he said.
The subject has prompted some alarm among Internet service provider executives
and civil liberties groups after the Justice Department took Google to court
earlier this year to force it to turn over information on customer searches.
Civil liberties groups also have sued Verizon and other telephone companies,
alleging they are working with the government to provide information without
search warrants on subscriber calling records.
Justice Department officials have said that any proposal would not call for the
content of communications to be preserved and would keep the information in the
companies' hands. The data could be obtained by the government through a
subpoena or other lawful process.
- Guam
- The U.S. Virgin Islands
- American Samoa
- The Northern Mariana Islands
- The Midway Islands
- Wake Island
- Johnston Atoll
- Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands
- Kingman Reef
- Navassa Island
- and Palmyra Atoll
join Virginia, Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska, and Missouri in their support of child pornography. (This post brought to you by the original letter, the list of US territories and Fox's boring "Standoff".)I don't remember who said this, but I once read a slashdot post that said "Drugs, terrorism and kiddie porn are the root password to the constitution."
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Ok, suppose I agree that this is a problem that can be solved by data retention without any further consideration of civil rights issues. First, ISPs are going to retain data on everything someone downloaded for what period of time? A month? A year? How, exactly, do you plan on storing that volume of data? I had roughly 1.8GB of traffic today. Second, the people making and trading kiddie pr0n are going to continue using encryption (Ever noticed the occasional enormous array of strongly encrypted files appearing in disused alt.binaries.pictures.* groups? You don't need to draw me a diagram.), and even if you have the exact file they sent or downloaded, it'll prove nothing!
Your point #1 is in fact what "they" are after, the reasoning behind going after the consumers as well as the producers, is that demand creates supply, and cutting off the demand for child pornography will lower the incentives to produce it (whether or not money is directly involved).
Wait just a second. By downloading it without paying for it, aren't you ... stealing it. You know, robbing the 'artists' that produce this 'intellectual property.' I mean, that's what Alberto Gonzales has been touring America to tell school children on behalf of the MPAA. Downloading without paying for it... that destroys the supply side, and ultimately destroy the art form itself. Now you're telling me that downloading child porn creates supply... So which is it? When it's a Hollywood movie, it's insuring the death of the industry. Yet when it's footage of a fifteen year old being naughty on her webcam, it's creating supply to purchase... How can that be?
http://banking.senate.gov/
I certainly don't read where they deal with ISPs. I do see them dealing with housing, mass transit, and financial institutions (banks, credit unions, etc.) Someone tell me where it says they've got the jurisdiction over an ISP, please?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Why does the Senate Banking Committee care about legistlation aimed at service providers to allegedly help track down sedition, I mean, child porn?
A note I sent to Mike Hatch, who's currently running for Govenor of Minnesota (where I live), and was one of the very few who didn't sign this letter. There are some edited slashdot comments in there, as some posters sum things up better than I. You can send comments to attorney.general@state.mn.us
Dear Attorney General Hatch,
I'd like to thank you for not adding your name to this letter:
(From AP) "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Congress should require Internet service providers to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography.
"This is a problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales told the Senate Banking Committee. "We need information. Information helps us makes cases."
"We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information," he said. " "
Child porn is just an excuse. If protecting children was really the point, the letter proposing legislation would limit all subpoenas of data retained under this law to child porn cases. This proposition doesn't do that, so Mr. Gonzales obviously wants to 'legitimize' the domestic spying program, gain unlimited access to private info with no oversight, and should be condemned for his co-opting a 'hot button' issue to garner support for a lie.
I appreciate the rather singular gesture you have made by not signing this letter, and showing Minnesotans and Americans that privacy and the fourth amendment are as important to you as they are to us.
Abusing children is a horrible crime, abusing them for more political power is worse.
Thanks, and good luck in November; you will have my vote.
I have no clue what the laws are in other states, but according to newspaper reports on the nutcase that recently confessed (apparently falsely) to killing Jon Benet Ramsey, he was extradited back to California on outstanding misdemeanor charges of possessing child porn.
This intusiveness seems excessive for something that's only going to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
(And if viewing a depiction of an illegal and immoral act were itself a crime (as it is for child porn, but extend that for any depiction of a crime), we'd pretty much have to charge anyone who ever watched TV or a movie. Even Disney kids' movies. Or visited an art gallery, come to that. And what about that old Coppertone billboard?)
Now, if they only going after those who upload the stuff, then they only need to ask ISPs to retain those logs.
-- Alastair
What the hell does the Tyrant have to do with Big Brother?
:-/
He can tell what you did in the past, what you are doing now, and what you may do in the future (unless you have a no-chamber).
Sounds like Big Brother to me.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
>Rather than dwell on the ethics of forcing children to have sex for the purpose of producing pornography...
... in fact, this is a clear example of a legal fiction.
Most teen/child porn is just naked teens/children, not hardcore. Much of the rest is manual or oral rather than penetrative. One can guess this from the distribution of types of mainstream porn (including late teen porn), even without having seen any CP.
>Under current law, sexual activity with minors is, ipso facto, non-consensual and therefore illegal.
"ipso facto" does not mean what you think
An 18 year old Black in the lowest sixth of Black scores has mental ability similar to an average 11.5 year-old, or a 7.5 year-old Jewish kid in the top sixth of Jewish scores. The dim and ignorant but 18 can consent - the brilliant and knowlegeable but 12 cannot.
So to keep the pretense of meaning to the legal concept of "consent", one would have to fall back on the "emotional maturity" argument - but that does not really fly, either, in those instances when the consent is not naive but based on calm reflection or positive experience.
>..the reasoning behind going after the consumers as well as the producers, is that demand creates supply, and cutting off the demand for child pornography will lower the incentives to produce it (whether or not money is directly involved).
It is wrong to think that even if all production of teen/child porn were stopped, that it would reduce teen or child sex. There is too much out there already on millions of hard drives to in any real way reduce the supply of porn by ending production. The proportion of "illicit" sex acts or even relationships that are ever recorded at all, let alone distributed must be tiny, so no significant sex reduction from that point of view, either.
>Of course everything concerning child porn tends to err on the side of vigorous prosecution, but then it's a pretty horrific crime, so that's understandable.
No, your thinking is all fuzzy - child porn is not a "horrific crime". Some sexual acts may be horrific crimes, but taking or looking at pictures does not add to that. And, as I pointed out most of this is mere nudity rather than sex of any kind, and much of even the arguably non-consentual portion of the sex is manual or oral.
>But do people really have a right to consume something that is illegal to produce?
Digital porn is not consumed. Like all other information porn is a "non-rivalrous good". Translated, you ask: "do people really have a right to look at pictures it is not legal to take because they record acts which are themselves declared illegal based upon a legal fiction invented to suppress forms of speech regarding biological-drive-determined thoughts which the majority find offensive?"
I'd like to thank you for not adding your name to this letter:
Pesky Plain Old Text.
1984 is already here. If you try to enter a career in any field of power (the intelligence service, major media or any mainstream political circle) they can perform an intelligence check to make sure you don't hold any politically incorrect views. If the government knows you've posted on Indymedia (far left) or Stormfront (far right) then you can say goodbye to ever obtaining a position of power. Add slashdot to the list relatively soon. The official reason they give for such background checks is to make sure you're not a terrorist or kiddy fiddler etc.
Honestly, aren't we to the point where we can just assume that anything Gonzales says is the true reason isn't, and that the purpose is to rob us of our civil rights, or give money to some crony corporation, or otherwise screw the population at large over?
Does he have even a shred of credibility left?
I am somewhat aggravated they'd use the thinkofthechildren line yet again.
Back when I was doing things that weren't illegal exactly, but not the kind of stuff I'd want traceable to me (mainly practical jokes and such, some of which the school administration might not find to be very funny) I'd use public computer labs to do all of my activities, since I realized that at some level, my name could be associated with my dialup connection, my dorm ethernet connection, etc.
I actually considered the idea a good one, and still do to this day, to require ISPs to attach names to IP addresses and retain them for a certain period of time (I considered a year to be a good time frame). Not for any of this thickofthechildren BS, but to track down hackers, vandals, and et cetera. The records would only be given out via search warrant, though due to the often very time critical nature of these things, I think a court should be able to issue signed electronic search warrants that could be sent to a cascade of ISPs to track down a guy using a series of relays to cover his tracks. At the time, and I think it's still true, tracking down someone online involves police bascially banging the phones with the ISP, trying to get permission to get access to their logs. It was cumbersome, and usually took way too long.
Own Criminal Acts.
Hamdi v Rumsfeld calls for a need for 'Military Tribunals' so as to ensure that when they 'goof' it's under strictest cover, and no-one will ever know what happened.
Is it any accident the CIA is CIA (Covering Its Ass)?
Gonzales is looking to legitimize the fact that the .gov has already been caught with it's hands in the til...
The abuses of The Constitution are being watched by everyone, everywhere. What was once the beacon of hope and bastion of freedom for the whole world is being trashed by criminals and oligarchs who seek to douse its light once and for all. The abuses against the American public must be arrested at the earliest possible juncture.
The truly frightening thing is that you can't even trust your democratic process anymore. So who's the terrorist? Where does he live?
Even Republicans can't deny the fact that it's getting out of hand.
Just today: On Tuesday, President Bush said, "Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad , people are making the choice for freedom.
Some choice.
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
You've exactly hit it on the head. Virtually no law regarding data collection has any limit to the uses with for data ostensibly captured for one alleged reason can be used or with whom it can be "shared".
We end up with electronic bridge passes which timestamp your every crossing, down to the second. Next thing you know, without announcement, theyre tracking individual passes for "enhanced traffic control' purposes -- i.e. they track how long individual cars take to go from point A to point B, so they can flash the result on digital signs saying, "Time from this point to Hell's Airport: 18 minutes."
Meanwhile they also slipstream into the system a "feature" allowing any fucking random cop to have YOUR individual car tracked through the city and out into the boonies as far as he wants.
The only real solution is to require that the originally-stated purpose for the data is the sole purpose for which it can be used -- no fucking inventive mission creep allowed without further use-specific enabling legislation. Furthermore, there should be severe and mandatory penalties (with public disclosure) for any mis-use.
Of course they'll have icing problems at Hell's Airport before the rat-fucking government allows any such limitations on their imperial power.
I wonder what happens when somebody sends out a virus that looks at random porn? Will all windows owners be allowed to go? Most likely not in this climate. But what would the supreme court say? The real problem is that the DOJ is able to do anything with this data and yet, they really can not prove that a certain party did it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First they came for the Child Porn viewers
and I did not speak out
because I did not view Child Porn.
Then they came for the Violent Porn viewers
and I did not speak out
because I did not view Violent Porn.
Then they came for the Virtual Porn viewers
and I did not speak out
because I did not view Virtual Porn.
Then they came for my ordinary porn,
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
"Gonzales Wants ISP Data Retention To Curb Porn"
Shortly thereafter we'll replace "Porn" with whatever other hot button issues we can come up with. Suspicously these threats to America will coincide with whenever the law needs to be renewed.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
Unfortunately it is harder and harder for me to move back home. I live overseas and it breaks my heart to see what a piece of shit the U.S. is turning into. I don't understand it and wonder if I would have understood it better if I lived full time in the U.S. This really gives me a pain in the stomach. It is so transparent what they are doing. Could someone ask twenty people in the office what they think about this news story and post what they say?
Yes... I'm thinking of the harmony.
Perhaps Gonzales will then buy us a Coke.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Severe measures are reasonable, if, I suggest, if, you have a severe problem.
I, like many, have had my experience with porn oriented spam, for many years now. I, like, ahem, many, could compare and contrast the content of various newsgroups, and more than a few web sites, observed only in passing as I labored to get past the popups, while I was surfing from my boat out side the 12 mile limit, really, it was my friend that was surfing...
but I digress. I have looked at more than a little porn in my life, over at least 10 years of internet access, and I have never seen solicitation number one for what we all really fear, the pre nubile child being used as a sex object. Plenty of supposedly teen age girl, blah, blah, blah, but no, none zip zero zilch solicitation for actual child porn. It could exist, I am a passive consumer, and wouldn't search it out. But if it was really an item, wouldn't it show up things I would see, newsgroup article headers, website link lists? But I have literally never seen even a suggestion of kiddy porn in the advertising stream. So I question how much of it exists.
So, if a relatively active consumer of porn hasn't seen it, where is it? Is there any real incidence, or are we talking about statistical anomalies?
And, should we be making our laws based on statistical anomalies?
Disclaimer: I don't deny, or wish to minimise the fact that child abuse occurs often enough for us to be thoughtful and concerned as a society - I am questioning the existence of an internet based economy in the artifacts of such abuse, the size of which should warrant government surveillance of the public at large.
With cameras and cross-reference all records of people's purchases too.
That way we can build profiles of what child pornography people buy so we can profile other likely sickos.
And we can also pull up records of every move they made and everyone they met or talked to since they were born so we can then check on those people and their contacts.
It's really necessary to save the children.
oh.. and to fight terrorists.
In fact, it would be better if we just put EVERYONE in 10' locked cells so we can keep an eye on them so they will never have a chance to do anything bad.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This song and dance is getting very old. I think the fundamental error made was allowing any content to be criminalized. You don't have to be in favor of something in order to oppose those who seek to subject it to criminal sanctions. If you want to go after those who commit abuse (not looking at pictures or reading stories) then go ahead. After all they are providing you with the evidence. But outlawing porn is just plain un-American. The idea is that we are supposed to have a free society that doesn't have thought crimes and witch trials. We fail in our attempts to achieve this standard but we should still aspire to that goal.
Gonzales is now enforcing a decades old law which states that using a common carrier to transfer pornography is illegal.
. html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0907061bukk1
Internet providers are also considered common carriers, which means viewing anything poronographic on the internet is illegal.
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov is the e-mail address to the Department of Justice. Send all Complaints there but be warned, they already monitor you if you have an opinion:
Excerpt from their "privacy Policy"
A. Information Collected and Stored Automatically
If you visit our site to read or download information, we collect and store the following information about your visit:
- The name of the Internet domain (for example, "xcompany.com" if you use a private Internet access account, or "yourschool.edu" if you are connecting from a university's domain) and the IP address (a number that is automatically assigned to your computer when you are using the Internet) from which you access our site;
- The type of browser and operating system used to access our site;
- The date and time you access our site;
- The Internet address of the Web site from which you linked directly to our site; and
- The pages you visit and the information you request.
This information is primarily collected for statistical analysis and technical improvements to the site. This government computer system uses software programs to create summary statistics, which may be used for such purposes as assessing what information is of most and least interest, determining technical design specifications, and identifying system performance or problem areas. In certain circumstances, however, we may take additional steps to identify you based on this information and we may share this information, including your identity, with other government agencies.
Also here is a link http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/FOIA/hotline2.htm where you can report Civil Rights and Civil Liberty Violations, found on the same page. Kinda ironic huh?
By payphone try Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555
The sad thing is He wants to monitor us, yet I can't find his phone number or personal contact information.
I'm completely against legislation like this, but in the interest of having a full discussion, I'll explain why they want this legislation.
They don't intend to use this against people that they already suspect. Instead, they will identify sites containing illegal images/information and then subpoena the major ISPs for lists of users that have accessed any of those sites. This becomes their probable cause and then they resume normal investigation techniques to solidify their cases.
You do realise we're discussing the Bush Administration don't you? They consider "evidence" to be an obscene word, which is improper to use in a public discussion. They seem to be a primary source of the American Government's Rampant Intelligence Failures. It's not the first time they have been working ass backwards on a problem. Consider:
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
The distributors of KP don't just file it under a Kiddy Porn folder. They also don't use terms like 14yo_cute_naked. There is a whole subculture of people trading this stuff. A lot of it is passed over IRC and other chat systems with file sharing capabilities. Some of the smarter people use something like Freenet to establish sites.
The vast majority of the real stuff is not on pay sites. You won't be spammed about it. It's dads sharing pics of their 8yo daughters with other dads.
Here is a good place to get started on learning about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_porn#Sources
The most popular keyword they use is r@ygold. However, most people dropping that keyword today will be diverted into a honeypot/sting operations.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
How much privacy can an ISP provide really? When we involve a third party, did we relinguish our expectation of privacy? Is downloading child porn through an ISP provided connection any different then getting a proxy to buy it off the street for us. Just as Gonzalez doesn't have any ground to request ISP to store, we don't have any ground to request that they don't. I don't recall any clause in the user agreement where the ISP promised not to keep data on your activity. It is a tough question but I am glad Gonzales is making an issue of it because I think we all need clarity on what ISP deal with our Internet activity.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Slapping a name on a bill is a dishonest labelling for the purpose of marketing.
You think theres a difference between politics and marketing? I mean, *seriously* dude!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
SSL may encrypt but it doesn't hide the fact you're going to certian websites.
For once The AG's heart and brain seems to be in the right place.
Google, Microsoft, come on, this is your last chance to establish Net Neutrality. Have your lawyers argue at FTC and the Supreme Court that based on AG's interpretation, ISP's should adhere to Net Neutrality by Common Carrier Law.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
What if EVERY email you sent had a clean, non-copyrighted 2-3MB video or audio attachment attached? You know, some crap like the home movie of the little kid hitting his father in the groin with a mini-baseball bat? ISP's would start complaining about all the crap they have to retain, and the government, if they were to harvest the data would get a high noise to signal ratio.
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
When I was growing up in Pakistan, I remember that many of us didn't have adequate food, let alone other luxuries like proper clothing and medical care. The effects of people being displaced by 3 wars and continual militarization is self-evident in how deeply violence is embedded in our culture.
Later, when I lived homeless in New York City and Toronto, I learnt a little bit of what was going on in the rest of the world. It seems to me that some parts are better, but most of the world is even worse off. I have to say that there are things that even the homeless here take for granted that are considered privileges for the middle class in Pakistan and other poorer countries.
This is the real reason for children and young adults to get into sexwork. It's also why there is so much fundamentalism. People turn to religion or extremism or whatever they can to help them cope. It's really nothing more complicated than desperation. When you're young, there isn't much for you to work with in a social structure that has been destroyed, so if your body can get you somewhere, you rely on it. Looking back, I feel like much of my life was spent constantly living with the fight or flight response.
Anyhow, this is here and now and I'm living well because the sexwork industry here is much better than anything I have ever seen. However, I fail to see how ever more power and control over here will help stop youth sexwork in poor places, because youth sexwork exists for reasons like not having enough food, money, security, etc. What is needed is that we solve these very basic social/economic/political/whatever problems so that youth don't have to do sexwork.
There is an article in Vice [Volume 13, Number 9] about child slavery in Bucharest, "SLAVERY'S BACK! Only Cuter..." by Claudia Grassi. Here is an excrept:
A Letter from Bucharest
This is a real letter that one of the girls that Claudia met (but didn't photograph) sent her. It's probably the harshest thing we've ever published.
When I see the news on the internet and I see the kinds of things that are happening in Africa, it looks much worse. Anyhow, I think that dealing with these economic or whatever issues is really what we need to do. I hope that the world can be better in the future, but the way things are going now, I don't know, it frightens me.
Who the heck is Gonzales? Is this Speedy Gonzales, the fastest mouse in all Mejico? Speaking of Mexico, there's a place in the world that is gobs of fun to visit... And if you're eligible for what I'm about to tell you about, you can be there, this winter, for free. And no, this ain't no joke: Taglit-birthright israel with Sachlav Educational Experience. It's a program, not in the same sense as a computer program. (I thought I should mention that because most 1337 h4x0rz here on /. might not recognize other uses of the word 'program.') This program is a free trip to Israel. Nope, this ain't no trick to make you buy something, and it's sure as I'm sitting here not a contest you have to win. And there's no essay to write, let alone worrying about buffer overruns, like, say, when they want a 500 word essay and you write 501 words. That last word ends up on someone else's essay. No, none of that stuff. It is a free trip to Israel for Jewish young adults ages 18 to 26. If you're eligible, you could be there this winter with a group of peers. You'll meet IDF soldiers your age who will join your group and hang out with you for much of the time you'll spend there. And you'll hike Masada, take an unsinkable swim at the Dead Sea, see the holy sites, and a whole lot more. If you ask me, I'd rather do that any day than worry about what legislation some Gonzales dude might pass. By the end of this trip, you'll have many new friends from Israel and the U.S. This trip is an action-packed 10 days, and the entire experience is amazing and uplifting. Trips take place around late December through early January. Travel on Taglit-birthright israel. EXPERIENCE Israel FREE with Sachlav. Sure beats chasing after Speedy Gonzales.
I would like to point out that the problem with kiddie porn is not watching it, rather producing it. If all production of kiddie porn and sex with children went away, and people continued watching kiddie porn, I think the world would be ok. Other than the fact that I've stumbled across a few kiddie porn pictures in my life, and that shit's disturbing, fucked up, and wrong.
Really, with these people they just think up whatever crazy bullshit argument they know they can get 50%+1 of the country riled up over, and go to town. I think I should get a job doing this, becuase I think I would be great at it. Observe:
1. If you don't give me your rights, PEOPLE WILL FUCK CHILDREN.
2. If you don't give up your guns, SNUFF FILMS WILL BE MADE IN YOUR BACK YARD.
3. If your neighbors are wearing high-top tennis shoes and getting all emo and stop buying meat, THEY ARE SATAN WORSHIPPERS.
4. If you're not a Bush-supporter, YOU'RE A COMMIE NEO-NAZI JEW.
I think I have a fair grasp on it. When do I get my first job? If you don't hire me, YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE UNABLE TO DISCERN WHICH HALF OF THE SENTENCE IS THE IMPORTANT PART, AND THEREFORE WILL MISS ALL MORAL TRAINING, THEREFORE WILL BECOME VIOLENT AND SHOOT YOU LIKE THOSE LYLE AND ERIC MENENDEZ KIDS!!!!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Even if you have such legal limitations, they may not hold for very long.
Germany has such electronic bridge passes. The purpose is to collect road tolls for trucks, and the law explicitly says that the information from the bridge passes may not be used for any other purpose. Now, two years after activation of the system, we have politicians wanting to change the law and make the data available for law enforcement. With the usual terrorist scaremongering in the argumentation.
C - the footgun of programming languages
I'm scared to voice my opinion against laws forcing the retention of bowsing records by i.s.p.'s for fear of being labeled an advocate of perverse behavior or a terrorist. Who wants big brother looking in the window while they are trying to look up pictures of triple girl on goat balloon popping inter-racial cigar smoking action. I mean come on! Give us normal perves some privacy. Geees!
I sincerely hope your comment "their support of child pornography" was an attempt at humor. I thought people who so grossly misused the political slippery slope were a comical myth.
All you can do is hope against hope that 51% of the Senate or the House are sane humans who have some vague understanding of what the hell's going on and kill stupid shit like this.
There's a distinct difference between pornography , erotic art , and just plain 'ol photography.
A picture of a naked 14-year-old boy or girl, just standing there in a neutral kind of way, not sexually suggestive at all, is completely legal as an artistic shot. My parents have photos of me as a baby, all nekkid with my little baby wee-wee and everything (curses!!) but I highly doubt they could even be considered remotely illegal.
Now, that same 14-yr-old doing something suggestive or posing in a not-for-kids manner would definitely be considered porn and thusly illegal. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding erotica and minors.
There are many professional photographers who aren't kiddie-pornographers, who take nude photos of their subjects whether they're of legal age or not.. This could also include medical imaging, as well as anything else it could include which I can't remember right now.
I wonder how long before someone uses CGI to make artificial kiddie-pr0n.. "but she's not underage, Your Honor! Right here in the code, her age is commented: Nine hundred." Loopholes, glorious loopholes. Just FYI, IANACP.
--A
[BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY]: X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVI
How about you stop pulling the "terrorism" card and "child porn" card, and tell us why, in no uncertain terms, you need to keep prying into our lives. What evidence do you have that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that such additional monitoring will help stamp out child pornography? What justification do you really have for your stance? I'm talking hard numbers ... how many cases have been successfully prosecuted (i.e., resulting in prison terms) for child pornography as a direct result of ISP data retention?
I have an even better idea: Stop pretending that our Constitutional rights are something to be traded away for more efficient law enforcement. If catching more pedophiles and terrorists requires the circumvention of the Constitution, then just accept that you just won't be able to catch more pedophiles and terrorists. Stop trying to tell us that you need to tap our phones, monitor our Internet usage, get records of our library activities, and shove protoscopes up our asses before we board airplanes.
As I get older, I become ever more convinced over-legislation will be the downfall of our society. We've got 535 people in Congress who think that their job is passing more laws. And any time there is a national tragedy, Congress gets into high gear to push even more laws through. A perfect example was Columbine. Congress went into a tizzy to pass new laws -- as if going on a murderous shooting spree in a public school had been legal at the time that the Columbine massacre took place.
But we don't have anyone tasked with repealing bad and duplicitous laws that are already on the books. Even unconstitutional laws often remain on the books for years because the system is set up to make it hard to overturn a law: The courts won't even listen to you unless you, personally, are harmed by those laws (if the law does not harm you, you do not have legal "standing").
What's made it worse is the use of misleading legislation names for political gain. If someone proposes a law called the "Online Sexual Predator Prevention Act of 2006" it will pass, regardless of what the law really is. It may be doing anything from giving government subsidies to RJ Reynolds to eliminating school lunch programs for the underprivileged. But any Congressman who votes against it will be painted as being in favor of sexual predators using the Internet as a means to find, rape, and kill children.
How do you type with boxing gloves on?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
But the Tyrant, Leto II, God Emperor, specifically bred his sisters descendants to create a human being who he was not able to see, for the purpose of making sure that no one would ever be able to track down all of humanity with prescience.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Wait - the government is actually asking for PERMISSION to spy on citizens this time? Wow. I guess they did learn their lesson from the wire-tapping incident.
What is that "probable cause" stuff that they babble about on TV Cop shows, anyway? Must just be a TV thing.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=terrorstorm& hl=en
watch this movie if you seriously beleive that they want these records to fight child pornography
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Better than having Gonzales records, would be preserving the public access to all Government files.
I mean, if they haven't done anything wrong, why would they hide it ?
It's the people's government, the people have the right to know what they've done.
Since GWB took office, the number of "secretized" documents has escalated astronomically.
I spent about an hour watching the Atty Gen testifying last night on CSpan. At one point, he held up as a success the data retention requirements under 2257. Those requirements are onerous and ridiculous, designed merely to harass mainstream porn producers.
Here was what struck me as odd. He said there was a connection between adult obscenity prosecutions and CP. He was asked to expand on that. He was asked how often it was the case that adult obscenity prosecutions led to CP prosecutions. The answer? He couldn't come up with anything. He cited unspecified studies as showing a connection, but he could not provide a single example of a prosecution for CP that had come about as a result of an adult obscenity investigation. In fact, he could only come up with one (just ONE) successful prosecution under 2257, that being the Girls Gone Wild case, something that has nothing to do with what any reasonable person would think of as CP.
I was kinda shocked. I knew he was lying about the correlation but I was shocked that he would lie so blatantly and then have no backup story. It was like he never expected to be asked to support any of his statements. It was like he expected to say anything he wanted and never get anything approaching a *real* question. The arrogance, the hubris were unbelievable. As another poster has said, he wasn't even trying to come up with *believable* lies.
Sidebar - This was ostensibly a hearing on the access of CP producers to credit card services. That would have been interesting. However, for the hour I listened (I came in in the middle) that subject was never brought up.
In the eyes of the law, there's a difference, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it distinct.
So... 14 year old naked... perfect legal. 14 year old naked, blowing a kiss at the camera... 5-10 years of jail time. To me, that seems absolutely insane.
Already happened. Under the Protect Act of 2003, a computer-generated image which is indistinguishable from a real child is still illegal. No loophole there.
Someone *please* mod the parent up. (Also, I believe imageboards like 4chan have problems with people posting child porn...)
Nuff said ...
Certainly, I am an advocate of eliminating the exploitation of children.
I personally think that the way this should work is if someone is suspected of wrongdoing, the authorities should obtain a warrant and then "tap" the internet connection, just as they currently do for phone calls... well.... unless you're W.
I don't see why the internet is treated as if our constitution doesn't apply. You could probably google image search the term "bathtub" while trying to remodel your bathroom... and it could return a photo someone took of their kids taking a bath. Does this mean the person doing the search is a criminal? Technically, yes. Realistically, no. Yet this could be held against them in today's lawyer driven society.
The other thing is, an internet account is registered to one person but seldom used by only them. How do you determine which potential user could be committing the crime? Sure you say one should be responsible for restricting access, but there are millions of people out there that don't really know what they're doing. Their wireless access point is not secure (because they don't know anything about it) and ANYONE could be using their connection to surf child porn or learn how to make bombs or whatever. Yes, there are ways of determining all of this information but that would mean the courts and lawyers would have to understand the system, too... which is not part of their job descriptions.
The current law in the US allows the police to get a warrant to look at the web sites you are visiting just by telling a judge (the judge cannot refuse). This is treated as analogous to the police getting a warrant to look at the pen register, the phone numbers you call and that call you. The phone company maintains these records to bill you properly (one can hope) and to show that their billing is correct, so the government is used to getting old phone call records. However, almost no ISPs in the US bill based on the web sites you visit, so they don't keep them. If the ISP doesn't have old records, it seems to me the police can wait at that point for more evidence.
The problem I have with this, the PATRIOT act, etc. is that they are taking away the rights that were deemed necessary to protect us from the government. Yes protect the people from the government. Why else would we have something like the 5th amendment. You can refuse to answer something because it might incriminate you, but the government cannot use that fact against you. The founders of this country knew the biggest threat to freedom is not from outside threats, but from the government itself. Orwell really did see the future, he just got the date wrong. I suspect it will be closer to 2014.
This very same record-keeping problem affect them: some jurisdictions require records to be kept, others prohibit keeping them, and all funding organizations require they produce circulation and billing records.
As a result, all the library software companies keep transaction records until the book is returned or, if lost or damaged, paid for.
As soon as the transaction closes, however, the personally identifying information is discarded, and only the usage information is kept, for later analysis.
Consider this a hint to the authors of free/open ISP management software.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
This is entirely pointless. It might catch some low-end content and players, but stings like you see on Dateline NBC are undoubtably far, far more effective at catching and convicting pedophiles.
The serious stuff is not going to be on an open web server, and if the feds have enough to get a search warrant for the host's SSL key then they have enough to seize the system and directly capture traffic on that server. In fact that's a common investigative tool -- seize the system but continue to run it for a month or two while collecting information. Merely visiting an IP address that contains kiddie porn or a pedophile's forum is suggestive, but no more. There could be plenty of legal material on that site.
Same thing with file sharing.
Worse for this "solution", is there doubt that the really serious players would go through hijacked PCs anyway? Can anyone seriously claim that no criminal has realized that he could set up a secure proxy server network on zombies? Hell, simply install OpenVPN on a non-standard port and in the mode where you have to have a valid key before you even get a response. Toss in BCP (iirc) and a script that periodically updates connection information and you have a system that goes through multiple hops with different encryption keys.
I know that organized crime is often shockingly net-ignorant, but kiddie porn has been shared by the net for years and all it takes is one group figuring out how to do this.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
You would think so, but I bet that in a lot of cases, they'd just treat your possession of the contraband as prima facie evidence of a crime.
5 98&bold=
It's like drug possession -- if the cops toss your car and find a kilo of China White or a handgun with the serial number scratched off in the glove compartment, your insistence that it's not yours may not keep you out of trouble. Just having it, in a place that was under your control, is the crime. A demonstration of intent is not necessary. In effect, it means that the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to explain themselves, and if they cannot provide a justification for the evidence, they're guilty.
Frankly I think "prima facie" laws in general are a travesty of justice; we ought to abolish the whole philosophy and get back to a more intent-focused jurisprudence. But of course if you tried to do that, you'd be keelhauled for being supportive of crime and criminals, because in the short term it would make the work of the police harder.
In general, a lot of "possession" laws (drug possession, weapon possession, pornography, "burglar's tools") are intentionally written this way so that a demonstration of intent is unnecessary, and many laws include the phrase "prima facie" verbatim. (See this Montana weapon law, for example.)
More information you might want to read:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm (deals with torts, specifically in employment law, but discussed the general concept)
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I tend to wonder; could a person refuse to divulge an encryption key on Fifth Amendment grounds?
It seems like this has to have happened before, so there's probably precedent on it somewhere. If you know that by revealing the key, you're going to be incriminating yourself, it seems like you might have grounds for refusal. That would keep you from being charged with contempt. That would also probably allow your spouse(s) to refuse to incriminate you, as well.
I could also see how a court could rule that an encryption key or password isn't "protected speech" though, in the same way that they've curtailed the First Amendment. IMO, I would think that the encryption key is a pretty big piece of evidence in itself, since it's the only way to show that the plaintext came from the ciphertext; thus disclosing a password or key really is testifying against oneself. Not that logic really plays any great role in modern jurisprudence, as far as I can tell.
I've seen discussions about this on sci.crypt and other places, but never a definitive answer.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
In response to recent studies showing that child abuse takes place predominantly inside private homes, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has put into action an initiative to place multiple government controlled cameras into every room, including the bath rooms, of every house in the United States of America. In response to protests by privacy advocate, Gonzales said only "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."
Burgulars and Rapists use CARS to get from place to place. We obviously need to have all gas stations track who fills up at them, and have all intersections have cameras on them that could.. oh.. um.. nevermind
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
What about when laws regarding content, ie censorship laws change, and you have people who "retroactively" broke the law? Can/Do you go after them, do they go on a suspicious list?
They just closed several "Adult shops" in our county. The censors are wanting to prosecute them harshly and send a message. It appears our courts may vindicate the owners, some old ladies actually.
Just a reminder to not trust "good intentions" for they "pave the way to hell". Nice quote, wonder who said that originally.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
we really don't.
Believe what we say, not what we do.
What?
I guess we all know that this has nothing to do with child porn, but let's try to figure out an alternative that would allow the politicians to achieve their stated goal without violating the rights of internet users in the process.
Like everything, child porn follows a production chain before it reaches its consumers. Someone has to:
- take the photos (which is the step that directly harms the children)
- publish them to a site (which makes them available, indirectly harming the children)
- point to the site so that paedophiles can find it
- forward the site link or the photos themselves
Gonzales is going after the end of the chain (the consumers) and is doing so in an unlimited way that invades every internet users's basic rights to privacy.
There are more direct tactics that could be applied:
- increase the penalties and the policing against the creators of the photos
- go after the sites, forcing them to reveal their usage records and (where necessary) continuing to allow the site to operate for a time so that records can be obtained
To preserve the rights of internet users, records should only be retained and available where there is a likelihood that there is a connection to child porn:
- oblige ISP providers to:
* preserve mail messages *** containing a limited set of keywords ***
* track DNS queries for *** specifically identified child porn sites or (mail-based) distributors **
- require communication services (mail, IM) to track the lists of addresses that are sent to (not received)
And here's the crucial part: any of the above data may only be requested for specific users that have been identified as potential child porn distributors.
If you do not have good evidence to get a warrant in less than 2 years, you should not just circumvent the due process of the judicial system.
Gonzales: I can't seem to get the judges to do what I want them to do. Let's blackmail the ISP to retain all the data we want instead. Congress, get a move on. That other branch is blocking our view again, cut it down!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Maybe gonzalez should work on rooting out the child sex rings in washington dc first, before tapping the entire internet for child porn.
Gonzales Wants ISP Data Retention To Curb Child Porn, so he can catch Ashcroft in the act.
This must be some use of the word "respect" with which I am unfamiliar.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
There are myriad laws that say, if you have information, it can be requested for various legal reasons: criminal search warrants, civil discovery, etc. As soon as the data exists, there is no way to protect it from being used for all purposes.
Like relentless rats, they will argue that since the cheese already exists, so there is no harm in them nibbling a corner. They will not stop until every rat can eat any part of the cheese he wants.
I wonder how long before someone uses CGI to make artificial kiddie-pr0n.. "but she's not underage, Your Honor! Right here in the code, her age is commented: Nine hundred." Loopholes, glorious loopholes. Just FYI, IANACP.
It's already been ruled upon. The Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 was overruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition on the basis of "simulated" child pornography. Then, in 2004, Congress passed the PROTECT Act, which relegislated similar clauses to the Child Pornography Act. It was struck down by a federal court just in April of this year.
It's already a long-standing issue.
As for the CP scum, they'll just move their d/l's to public hot spots and other anonymous locations.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Sounds like he's exploiting children to pass a bill that is allegedly designed to prevent the exploitation
of children.
Kind of ironic, don't you think?
Mighty Martian doesn't realize how much words like that embolden the enemy.
A transparent population governed by a completely secret and impenetrable law enforcement is the only way to protect us from terror, pedophiles and mp3 pirates.
Heil-er, hi y'all!
[gonzales apologist mode off]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The hearing itself is Available Online. It is interesting to note that no Civil Liberties groups or technically minded individuals were invited to testify. The speakers included 1 member of congress, Alberto (I want your DNA and your thoughts) Gonzales, The president of the national center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Four Bank and Credit Card executives.
Granted the hearing was before the Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs But if they are going to talk about what ISP's should do and what privacy people should give up to make that happen you would think that they would want to hear from the people involved.
Then again it appears from my initial reading of the other statements that Gonzales was more or less alone in his demand for other info. The statmenets of Senator Richard Shelby (Committee Chairman), and of Mr. Ernie Allen Head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children do not mention additional data retention. Both focus on the Financial Coalition against Child Pornography.
Interestingly, rather than focusing on what new privacy-invasive efforts are needed Mr. Allan sounds an optimistic note about how successful they've been given what they have. It seems that existing information is useful and, as he points out, you can't arrest all child pornographers but you can drive them underground and through a coalition of banks refusing to transfer payments, make it unprofitable.
I am quite leery of banks monitoring my transactions for things that "look like" child porn and I'd hope they'd have a method for clearing accounts in the case of identity theft. (What kind of dumbass uses their own credit card to commit crimes?)
I may be the only one but I read this as another one of the Administrations knee-jerk dictator moments. When presented with anything they demand more retention of info and less privacy even when the people who devote their lives to fighting that thing, don't.
The choice of this committee is a bit creepy given the presence of Rick Santorum better known by the statement that the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"
He also made subsequent statmenets blaming Katrina Victims for their plight.
They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.
I mean, jeez, when they were talking copyright at least they were "harmonizing" with another law, though they never explained why they have to keep harmonizing laws to match the most oppressive ones...but in this case there's nothing he's harmonizing with. As far as the article mentions, it's not like there are a bunch of state retention laws that need to be harmonized by a federal one. It's like there's a new definition in Websters: "Harmonize: v. Fuck with"
http://www.mysecureisp.com/
There is lots of information available, and where there is reasonable cause to believe that a pornography distributer is using an ISP, I'm sure that there are lots of laws that would make it possible to require an ISP to maintain the specific records necessary to mount a proper prosecution.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
This article hatched a thought in my head about a purchase I made on Ebay years ago. It was a collection of records an old metalhead was cleaning out and I bought a lot of 15 for 30$ because I wanted to try the whole Ebay thing. The lot was random and I ended up with some Yngwie and Iced Earth and Misfits albums but the jewel of the lot was the European release of the Scorpions-Virgin Killer. Now for any historian of metal you know what I had, for the rest I'll just say it would not be healthy for you to display the cover picture today. I finally had to burn it because I was so paranoid about somebody turning me in as a sex offender. Does that seem right. A classic album like that. The picture on the cover was taken in 75 and it wasn't against the law then, but now it'll get you a heap of crap.
Well, sometime ago (maybe 6 years) I found and send an url to the fbi. Never received and answer.
With this url, you can have access many child porn sites.
When I reenter the url to see if the sites are already dow, I found the same sites and sometimes a new ones.
Maybe is a bait for the fbi.
I dont know.
Just like the NSA spying program, if this gets results, who cares? I can tell you who doesn't, the general public. The general public cares more about child abuse then they care about privacy. In truth, Shashdot users are a minority. most people don't care so much about themselves. This actually could stop child porn. We know the NSA terrorist servalence did assist in stopping that transatlantic plain bombing and has thus far prevented any attacks on US soil, so it will continue while it is still working. If it works, then it will continue.
The Gospel according to lolcat
Yes, I completely agree - we need a bill that abolishes naming of future bills. And we need to call it the "Feed the Starving Puppies Bill of 2006"
Check this - CGI kiddy porn is probably legal.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I've got years of experience including searching what I really want at the search engines; in 99% of the cases I find what I need and if it's non-existant I will get a neat "no results" reply back. I've tried to deliberately search for a lot of keywords regarding kiddie porn, including the "r@ygold" keyword mentioned in the Wikipedia Child_porn stub.
...
I have found absolutely NOTHING which even resembles kids having sex with adults/kids. I've even taken it further into research and tried it on a few P2P networks; whereunder Limewire. Lots of results but nothing which even resembles a bit to a kid
I have to conclude these sites are either very underground or not indexed on the Internet to protect their "investment" to get caught by the feds. This content is simply not available to the wide public.
Aside from that, I have received a couple of spam e-mails which do contain links to "lolita" sites where "they" sell kiddieporn over the net. I have notified such site to Childfocus, an organisation in the EU which comes up for exploited/missing children. The reply was very simple; best to delete the mail because they cannot been catched anyways. Probably a very standard response while I would have thougth they have the connections with the law to interrupt such "businesses" exploiting children...
I am very convinced Mr. Gonzales has a complete different agenda next to kiddie porn; since; the Internet has way larger problems regarding spams, scams, spyware and trojans instead of kiddie-bits.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Agreed... this has absolutely nothing to do with porn; it is about creating the ability to covertly identify, track and harass leakers who blow the whistle on corruption in government (and in the big corporations who fund political campaigns). [Remember the "Pentagon Papers"?] Of COURSE he is lying, because if he told the truth, not even the neo-Republicans would let the Bush regime get away with this. In contrast, Ashcroft was a self-deluded fool who really wanted to believe that it was necessary to shred the constitution in order to fight the "bad guys." Gonzales is just a weasel who has never even been under the ILLUSION that he was doing anything good. This guy actually ENJOYS spouting the most outrageously insulting lies he can dream up, and he is constantly smirking & snickering about it, just like Bush. Part of the reason these people think they are so funny is that power is like a drug to them* -- as Kissinger put it: "the ultimate aphrodisiac." They relish the idea that, because they are in power, you have no choice but to listen to them. The other part is, they just can't believe that people are still falling for this shit (or that the news media still pretends like you should take them seriously). Like most neo-Republicans, Ashcroft was just an idiotic pseudo-patriot who honestly wanted to believe most of the lies he was told to repeat. Gonzales is just pure evil; a psychopathic mafia lizard who openly mocks truth and justice. This time around, the people who pull Bush's strings just wanted to be damned sure that he hired somebody with absolutely no chance of developing a conscience.
1 031.htm
_____________________
*Now we come at last to the heart of darkness. Now we know, from their own words, that the Bush Regime is a cult -- a cult whose god is Power, whose adherents believe that they alone control reality, that indeed they create the world anew with each act of their iron will. And the goal of this will -- undergirded by the cult's supreme virtues of war, fury and blind faith -- is likewise openly declared: "Empire." You think this is an exaggeration? Then heed the words of the White House itself: a "senior adviser" to the president, who, as The New York Times reports, explained the cult to author Ron Suskind in the heady pre-war days of 2002. First, the top Bush insider mocked the journalist and all those "in what we call the reality-based community," i.e., people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Suskind's attempt to defend the principles of reason and enlightenment cut no ice with the Bush-man:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," he said. "And while you're studying that reality, we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors--and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs2004