Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Launches Uncensored Image Hosting
Spamicles writes "The guys over at the Pirate Bay have launched a new, censorship-free image hosting website called BayImg. Users of the new service don't have to sign-up in order to upload images. However, they can assign a 'removal code' to uploaded images, in case they want to delete the files after a while, and tags to categorize images. BayImg currently supports 100+ file formats, and supports uploading Zip and Rar archives. The maximum file size of uploads is 100MB. The article also discusses TPB's plans for launching a video streaming service that will potentially compete with YouTube."
It seems they have tagging for images, so I guess I'm wrong about browsing. My bad.
Publish the date, time and ip address of every upload. No censorship.
Deleted
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Without some ranking system. At least as good as diggit, it will just become a trash land. It has no search mechanism, no ranking of content. No categorizing of content other than by unsearchable tags. As it stands, it is a little more than the beginning of another attempt at usenet.... except even less organized.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Since they allow archives on the site, are people going to use this to upload and share warez? Or does the system scan uploaded archives and rejects non-images based on content?
BTW, I visited the site about 10 hours ago, and the tag cloud was full of injected JavaScript - it was pretty much benign (only a couple of alert functions), but funny nevertheless, and seems like the whole thing was put together very quickly. They've fixed the problem now.
But quite handy for steganography, which is probably what this is really for.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Did I miss the memo where child porn became legal in Sweden?
I know nothing about Swedish law, but it's entirely possible that they define both "child" and "pornography" differently than in the U.S., creating a space where something is legal if it's on a Swedish webserver, but not if it's in one in the U.S. (Actually, I think there are a number of respected, non-pornographic films that contain nudity that fall into this area.)
Anyway, if they want to avoid getting constantly raided by the local gendarmes, they should probably create some sort of "Foreigner's Guide to Swedish Obscenity Law" so that people can at least have a shot at knowing what's illegal before they upload it.
In particular, aside from pornography which is the obvious one, I wonder about extreme animal cruelty (there is some downright disgusting stuff out there, and to be honest I find it more offensive than most of the run-of-the-mill CP). I kinda hope the Swedes make that illegal, since I think its presence does encourage its creation -- some dickhead sees another dickhead gain some sort of minor notoriety online by setting a kitten on fire and decides to emulate them. Since animals are more easily available and even more vulnerable than children, and the disincentives against hurting them are less, it doesn't take much.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Just curious, but is it legal for photography/video? And is it legal for downloading said materials of people that age?
Because even in states in the US where it's legal for two underage people to have sex, it's usually not legal for them to make photographs/video and distribute them.
Too lazy to try to google the answer. And kind of scared of what results I might get...
Could someone please indulge me as to why there is such a dire focus on child pornography? It's a horrible crime, certainly, but I've never see the same status associated with other, and in my mind, just as horrible acts such as snuff films, brutal rape, torture, etc. Is this simply another act of 'think of the children' knee-jerking, or is there some reason why this is seen to be counted as worse than torture and murder by a large part of our population?
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
1) Backup to file.
2) Encrypt file.
3) Inject data stream into lossless image format.
4) Upload image.
5) Retrieve anywhere.
http://www.bayimg.com/album/GaacoaAaA
Scarcity is a great evil, if it can be abolished it must.
OK, let me run a thought experiment by you.
Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that I invent a cheap 3-dimensional copying device which produces perfect copies of anything placed in it. Even down to the material used to produce the copy, its strength and its colour. This device can be made and sold cheaply enough to market it to the general public, and it's not really possible to spot the difference between the copies are originals.
Note that it doesn't allow you to create an object from scratch (so it's a bit different to computer software in that respect, and thus the ability for individuals to innovate with it is substantially curtailed). Considering the economy as a whole (including the number of people currently employed in manufacturing), Is it a good or a bad thing?
[Ed. Note. For full effect, you should imagine this being read by the always helpful June Thomas]
;)
Actually the age criteria for nude photography is a bit more complicated than a simple inequality. You can photograph anyone regardless of age (assuming of course you have his/her and/or his/her parrent/guardian's informed consent), as long as it's not in a "sexually explicit or lude and lascivious manner." This why you can have pictures of naked babies, children's genetalia in medical or sex-ed books, even in art. If the photographs or video are in sexual manner, then you have to 18.
How do you know where to draw the line when prosecuting child porn cases? In practice you don't have to define the exactly where the line is. A video of a grown man ejaculating on a nude 5 year old's face is pretty good indication, of that video being on the wrong side of the law. Same for a photo of 10 year old spreading her labia for the camera.
So how do investigators know that the individidual in the photograph or video is a real person that is under 18 years of age at the time of recording? Easy. The FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have an incredibly large collection of child porn. Like all porn, child porn is shared widely and has a very long life time. Investigators look for previously identified bonafied child porn, and prosecute on those instances. New suspected child porn is identified by medical doctors, who examine the material an give an expert opinion of whether the individual is underage. (Yes, they also maintain a database of false positives.)
When it comes to possession, posession is illegal. While it may be a dubious comfort, the US Attorney probably won't prosecute you for each individual photo or video in your 100 GB pr0n collection, but rather for just a two or three photos or videos. I say it's dubious, because you'll still be going to jail for a long long time.
And before anyone gets the wrong idea. I recently served on a federal grand jury. The Assistant US Attorney explained the law to us.
In an unrelated case, he ran a DEA video explaining -- in detail -- three methods used to manufacture methamphetamines. Yes. You could take notes.
"As long as your pictures are legal they will be hosted here"
To be perfectly legal you have to have permisson from copyright holders. If you have a quick look around the site it seems improbable that this is the case for most of the pictures.