Slashdot Mirror
Google Turns Over Data on Suspected Pedophiles In Brazil
Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, points to a Yahoo! story which begins "Google on Wednesday handed over data stored by suspected pedophiles on its Orkut social networking site to Brazilian authorities, ceding to pressure to lift its confidentiality duty to its users, officials said."
On Thursday they handed over information on terrorists
On Friday they handed over information on file-sharers
On Saturday they handed over information on everyone
Wednesday was the hardest. Every day after that it got easier and easier.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Let`s ask Google how much our private data is worth.
Many times 'suspected' means 'guilty' after emotions applied
Cause you know, everyone is entitled to protection of privacy unless suspected (quite possibly innocent, but suspected) of crime-du-jour, whether today's hatred is towards child abuse, terrorism or being member of a communist party. And of course, a government would never abuse the special right to treat suspects of such a crime differently to, say, use suspicion of such a crime as a pretext to get at others. Oh, no, that'd never happen!
As much as I may hate child abusers and terrorists, I think suspects of such crimes should be offered the same Ius Commune rights as everyone else -- they should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and mere suspicion should never be enough to remove rights that you and I enjoy. But then again, I'm a commie mutant, so I probably shouldn't have any rights either...
they want to HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN. you think its a bad thing the police dont know about them? fuck privacy
Actually, on Friday I'm in love. :)
However, privacy and yadda yadda yadda. Pedophiles are the lowest of the lowest in my book. Why not use social networking sites as tools to catch those guys? If anything it'll deter them from using those sites to chase their prey.
We need to wage a War on Crimethink!
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Who knows if they already didn't? JAIL FOR THEM ALL!
they want to QUESTION THE RULING REGIME OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. you think its a bad thing the police know about them? fuck privacy.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting people's rights from undue invasion by governments. But there is also a need for governments to get access to information for criminal investigations. It's just as unreasonable to say that government should have no access to information about suspected terrorists and pedophiles, as it is to say that the government should have access to *everyones* information.
Although I usually hate the "slippery slope" argument, I think this is really one case where it is valid. Today they decide that it is ok to release the information on SUSPECTED pedophiles. Once you've opened the gates on something like this it is very hard to close it. If suspected pedophiles are ok, how about suspected terrorists? Suspected murderers? Where do you draw the line?
I'm not necessarily saying that it's alright to provide personal information of its users, but how bad are paedophiles comparitively really? To be honest, I think paedophiles are the worst offender, far worse than terrorists. At leasts terrorists can be looked at in a positive light, i.e. freedom fighters. What good have paedophiles ever done? You can't even play devil's advocate and say that they're doing anything good. Yes I know my argument is ignoring all specifics of the two types of people. Let me address that, I believe paedophiles have mental health problems, meaning they need medical treatment and not imprisonment. However, the number of paedophiles and rapists who live in our society and never get caught, I reckon, is far far higher than most believe. I do believe something needs to be done to address the issue.
Lets hope the police are better than the UK police, who basically ruined this man's life on a false allegation of being a paedophile.
... something the police should have looked into before charging him.
It would be one ting if they had a reasonable amount of evidence, but it seems that it was all based on his credit card being used to pay for kiddie porn. Like how many purvs will use their own cards. Anyway, he later found that the computer that entered his details was in Indonesia, and could prove that he was in the UK at the time
Pedo's ruin it for everyone!
The meme is dead, long live the meme!
"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."
-Cardinal Richelieu
I took this quote from Scroogled story...
On Wednesday they handed over information on pedophiles
On Thursday they handed over information on terrorists
On Friday they handed over information on file-sharers
On Saturday they handed over information on everyone
Wednesday was the hardest. Every day after that it got easier and easier.
What are you talking about? Wednesday they had to hand over every one's data because everyone is suspected of being a pedophile, which is now defined as communicating in any form with a minor.
Guess your post says it all. For those who didn't RTFA, here is the really short dramatic version:
... Authorities had threatened Google with criminal and civil lawsuitsIt only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
I was watching some TV news show 2 or 3 weeks ago, about the idea of businesses becoming "Big Brother". (May have been a Dateline episode or some such thing... I only caught the middle of it.)
But anyway, it went into the ways the big ISPs and search engine sites are co-operating with govt. and law enforcement, happily turning over considerable amounts of information. It told a story, for example, of a guy who was convicted of murdering his wife on the beach, despite his initial alibi holding up. Apparently, he claimed shots were fired from across the road, in the brush someplace, and his wife was struck by them. The only thing that really got him convicted was the fact that law enforcement demanded Google turn over his complete history of searches he'd done from his computer's IP address, going back YEARS. Google did so, and they found out he'd done a number of searches, about a year earlier, on such things as how to murder someone and get away with it, info on bullet projectiles, etc. etc.
Google admitted that they do store EVERY SINGLE SEARCH anyone ever does, and can go all the way back to when their operation first started.
My more cynical side wonders if this is *really* the reason Google stock is valued so highly? As this TV show touched on, Google is in position to be the most comprehensive and powerful data-provider on the planet for people paying for someone's personal information. Depending on how many free services a person has availed themselves of, Google would be able to cough up photos of a person's friends, family, relatives, pets, home and car, and who knows what else. If they use Google Checkout, they'd have info on income they received from Internet sales. If they use their free online Office applications, they could even provide copies of any Excel spreadsheets or Word documents they worked on through it. They've got a complete archive of any email correspondence they did via Gmail (and other mail accounts too, if someone forwards their email to Gmail so they can check it all with just one account). And obviously, they have a pretty good profile of the individual based on all the searches they've ever done while online. Don't forget, if they watch videos on YouTube, that ALSO gives some info on the person and their interests.
This totally eclipses what traditional credit agencies and "data miners" are able to sell their customers, and means they're positioned to generate FAR more revenue than from things like ad banners and "placement"!
Oh now I'm as rabidly pro-privacy as the next person, but questioning authority and planning to commit a crime are entirely different matters.
I'm not supporting Google's actions, just pointing out that your counter-example is wrong.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I don't know anything about Brazilian law - so somebody who does might clue the rest of us in, but...
... negotiate a wide-ranging deal that would see the US company systematically providing data on suspect Orkut users to Brazilian authorities."
In most countries the deal is that if you know somebody is a pedophile (convicted or registered by choice - rare as that may be), then a case worker gets to know 'their every move' as it is, including online dealings. If the caseworker thinks the person has a MySpace account and wants access to it - that case worker can order the person to reveal their login details. If the person then refuses, they can get a court order for MySpace to reveal the details of the account. MySpace could then opt to refuse, but that'll get them in a world of hurt.
Seems to me that the brazilian authorities didn't even do the Court Order thing:
"Authorities had threatened Google with criminal and civil lawsuits if it did not comply with opening the restricted online photo albums of users under suspicion."
'Comply with opening' under court order? Then yes, Google should get suits against it. 'Comply with opening' under an informal request? Uh, no.
But to get back to the subject.. what's worse is that this isn't even people who they know are pedophiles.. they're just suspected... "The US Internet giant delivered 3,261 files to a Brazilian senate commission" - that's 3,261 people they suspect might be pedophiles. "Torres said he believed Google's data would incriminate around 200 pedophiles." - That's 200 they think actually will be found guilty of violating laws against pedophilia. That's more than 3,000 people whose 'private'* information they have but don't actually expect to get any convictions of; either by lack of solid evidence or simply because those people are innocent. So what happens to their data? (Other than the obvious screening for other possible illegal behavior)
To top it off, Google plans on making this fully automatic in the future. "Google
Lovely.
* remember, once it's written down anywhere, it's no longer private - no matter what that little "Private" checkbox on Orkut, MySpace, FaceBook, etc. says.
...is full of woe.
Thursday's child has far to go.
Or if you like the original 1887 version:
Friday's child is full of woe.
Saturday's child has far to go.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
no text
And that's what's called the Slippery Slope fallacy.
Where is the link between information obtained on criminal activity and information obtained on everyone?
As for your inclusion of file-sharing: that's an issue of the law, not an issue of privacy. If it becomes illegal to share files, then it's the fault of the lawmakers for making it so, and the voters for voting them in, not Google or anyone else for complying with the law and turning over information on criminal activity.
Of course, there's a time and place for civil disobedience, but that's an entirely different topic.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
They always start with the "lowest of the low" precisely because they know no one will object to it. But they NEVER stop there. The next step is "Well, since you gave us information on these really bad guys, you can't object to giving us info on these *sorta* bad guys" which snowballs to the point where the government eventually just has its own monitoring room at your facility to watch *everyone*.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I just want to point out you completely missed the point. Questioning the ruling party IS a crime in nearly ALL fascist states. THAT is the path we are currently heading down, and THIS is yet another example. Give away your privacy, think of the children!
It's funny how everyone bends over backward to prevent companies from doing the right thing and then at the end of the day they wonder why our society is going to hell in a hand-basket.
The other day some local journalists were very upset because police used their unedited film footage to identify and arrest store looters (rioting occurred after a local hockey game).
I mean, the *nerve* of that police! How dare they try to arrest looters? Today they're using the footage to arrest looters, tomorrow they'll use it to arrest rapists! What's next?!
Do everyone a favor and reserve your complaints to when the government cracks down on people that do *not* cause want-on harm to society. After all, they weren't cracking down on the pedophiles because the way they look or because of their personal beliefs, rather they did this because some of these people actually went out and abused children!
That way, there will be no information for the government to go after in the first place. Really, it can't be that hard to go your entire life without sticking your cock in a little boy. You should try going cold turkey before you get busted.
There's a mile of difference between "probable cause" and "suspect".
If I called in a tip that I heard my neighbor's kid cry the other day, that would make my neighbor a child abuse suspect, no matter how likely he is to be innocent. Should that be enough to void all his rights to privacy?
Wednesday was hard for you I'd imagine. No more child porn and nothing to do with your life but pay for a lousy Slashdot subscription? You must have been climbing the walls.
You're a dirty child-fucking bastard.
And how long did it take after 9-11 and the Patriot Act before the U.S. government was data-mining every single citizen?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
From the article, it looked to me like they were asking Google for access to private photo albums. I don't know what evidence they had on the matter, what the privacy standards are like in Brazil, or whether they had a lawful subpoena, but if something like that was tried in the US, freedom-loving people would be throwing a hissy-fit, and possibly rightfully so.
I applaud their move. Some people might try (and I'm using the word try ) to argue some things are worst, i.e. : murders or whatever else, but the truth is that children whom have gone through such experiences are often terrified and have a very difficult time to talk about it, not only because it's an awful thing to go through, but often their vocabulary doesn't permit them to express themselves as they want to, and this will result in the person growing up with deep psychological issues all his/her life.
I usually laugh at the people trying to ban violent video games (OMG think of the kids!!) or other similar non-sense but the truth is
Pedophilia is no laugher matter. Hurray for Google even if they did this only because they felt the pressure, I hope others follow in their footsteps!
what the Brazilian government asked for is access to several private photo albums for these suspected pedophiles. Apparently there were several Orkut communities being used to trade kiddy porn.
Interesting slip there.
You are innocent until proven guilty; at least, in theory, in America.
They use the word "suspects" but they really have probable cause and Google has being trying not to comply with DA's subpoenas for a long time now.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
If a minor appears in a pornographic image, then a crime has already been committed. What, you can't find any willing partners, so you have to get off looking at pics of kids who were either forced or coerced by older, wiser adults? Doing so makes you a party of the original crime.
If you had RTFA, you would see that the government didn't get warrants for any of these "suspects" and freely admitted that there wasn't enough evidence to do so. This isn't a case of some cop going before a judge and saying "Your honor, I need to subpoena this guy's records because I suspect he's a pedophile and here's my preliminary evidence." This was a case of the government saying "Here's a list of names. Give us all their information and don't ask any questions."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
yeah! death to the commies! ...tsk tsk tsk
Ofcourse TV can talk to children as much as it likes! Cartoon networks and commercials for kids is the only wholesome communication for our kids. Hop off the pedo's lap, sit on Ronald McDonald's lap!
https://dalgamotor.wordpress.com/ - Elektronik beyinlere ozgurluk asisi (Turkish)
Wow... what a shocker.
In the old days we had these things called phone *wiretaps*. Someone would *suspect* someone was distributing crack in the local neighborhood. They'd then ask a judge to wiretap their line, thereby infringing on that sacred privacy you mentioned, and collect enough evidence to convict them.
That's how the world works. There is no such thing as unlimited rights, nor should there be.
If some girl with a profile on MySpace arranges to meet with some guy and subsequently gets raped without seeing her attacker then police have very good reason to want to look into that online profile's private information and search the guy's house for evidence.
Stop bending over backward trying to defend criminals. There isn't any sort of discrimination going on here against a person's beliefs, rather it is their harmful *actions* we are talking about.
If a crime is committed, there will be a police investigation. The police then requests court orders to acquire private data belonging to the suspects. If the court finds there's reasonable evidence backing up the requests, it will gran them.. The police will then present the court order to the ISP and the ISP has to comply. That's how things already work in the US for all ISPs, including google.
The exact same procedure was followed in Brazil for this pedofilia case. As a matter of fact, the procedure was followed several times, but google failed to comply with all Brazilian's court orders regarding this matter. The case had to reach a senate comittee investigation ( which in Brazil functions similarly to a judicial investigation, but with more resources) in order to Google to comply with the court order.
Google's excuse for not complying with court order, you ask? Well, google told the Brazilian justice system that since the order wasn't isued within the USA they couldn't do a thing about it.
So that's it, folks, do panic for the same thing that's happening in Brazil has been happening in the US for quite a long time. The only difference is that google has kind of a hard time respecting Brazil's sovereigny.
The fact is that Google _has_ being served subpoenas all the time for this. And it has resisted complying ("we are Google Brasil, the data is at Google USA, we don't know anything...") for a long time now. So, after some time threatening to prosecute Google Brasil for criminal and civil charges, they woke up and said "ok, ok, here is the data you subpoenaed us for..."
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
That reasonable middle ground is due process. The article was extremely light on the details of how due process works in Brazil, and whether or not such processes were followed.
If this had been the US government, the Constitution and years of constitutional law and judicial rulings would have required a subpoena, signed by a judge, and pertaining to specific data before Google would give up the information.
Of course, 6 years of recent executive power would have required only the waterboarding of Google's CEO in order to get the information.
These people had POSTED private albums that contained pornographic images of children. The gov wanted their identity in order to prosecute them.
It's not a case of "let's see if they are doing something wrong", it's a case of "what is the identity of the people who posted those images there and what else is in the now-private albums?"
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/infotech/view/20080410-129449/Brazil-Senate-orders-Google-to-identify-website-pedophiles
The case for investigation has been made a long time ago not only for pedophiles groups but also for communities that were being used to traffic and sell illegal drugs. Google just didn't want to open up for search claiming the Brazilian court had no jurisdiction over it.
Some of you people seem to think privacy trumps everything else even when anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that crimes are being committed.
The article simply says "Authorities had threatened Google with criminal and civil lawsuits if it did not comply with opening the restricted online photo albums of users under suspicion".
Which isn't quite the entire truth.
See, for example, http://www.denunciar.org.br/twiki/bin/view/SaferNet/Noticia20071019015559En
and you'll discover
"But Google faced a growing wave of complaints, many instigated by Mr. Tavares. Sérgio Gardenghi Suiama, a federal prosecutor in São Paulo in charge of human rights, began flooding the company's Brazil office with subpoenas seeking identifying information, such as email addresses, of Orkut users accused of committing crimes online.
Under direction from Google's U.S. headquarters, Mr. Hohagen refused to accept the subpoenas. Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, traveled to Brazil to explain the situation."
Eventually, authorities threatened to start arresting Google employees in Brazil, and courts started issuing threats of contempt, so they complied.
Not sure what else you guys were expecting to happen?
Do we really have to go through another Kristallnacht, another Auschwitz or Sachsenhausen for people to fight tyranny, totalitarianism -- and yes, Crimethink?
And if you saw him cut of the head of his child that would make him a murder suspect. Should that be enough to void some of his rights to privacy?
There is a reasonable middle ground. It's called a warrant. The government shows to a judge that they have sufficient evidence to show probable cause a) that the person did the crime, and b) that the person they're asking for information from has specific and relevant information to this case. If they can do this, then, and only then, they can get the information. It would help if the judges involved have some backbone and actually demand the government makes a decent case.
Considering Phlebas, whoever the hell he is.
Well, considering the fact that monitoring != "data-mining," I'd say you're just jumping to unverified conclusions and propagating fear to try to justify your illogical position.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
Look, I don't like it any better than the next guy that the government can decide it needs information on $class_of_people (suspected terrorists, pedophiles, spammers, Chinese government hackers, whatever); but I also know that that is one of the tradeoffs for the convenience of using the web.
And, when it all comes down to it, it is a matter of convenience (and perhaps efficiency), nothing more. There is very little (if anything) I can do online that I cannot do with a pay phone and the yellow pages.
I, for one, am willing to accept the fact that my browsing habits are being tracked by Google, by any other search engine, by my ISP, by social networking sites, by my company, by the government. If I want to do something off-the-radar, I'll pick up a phone or use a proxy.
So the point of all this? If you want real privacy, prepare to inconvenience yourself. You can't have an infinite degree of convenience without sacrificing something, be it security or privacy.
The only big news here is that Google has shown that if they are pressed hard enough and long enough, they will cave to government pressure. I figured it would be the case, even though they've stood up to the US a couple times in the past (though not some other governments). Cue renewed US demands for information in 3...2...1...
Only if the adult is male.
Given that goggle have been using picture analysis to help catch paedophiles for a long time, and that catching pedos inst evil by anybody's standards, id say that they draw the line at paedophiles.
Also this has nothing to do with google search, just their social networking site.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
the headline would have read "Google shields pedophiles from Brazilian police".
Burn the mutant!
Burn the mutant!
Burn the mutant!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In Brazil, the government (with permission from a judge) has the power to get information from telephone lines, for example. The same is applied to Internet ISPs and many sites. Google was not giving the information that they should according to the laws of the country, alleging they couldn't access the servers, that were on the US (they said that to the authorities, even though I know people working on the Orkut code here in Brazil).
The argument is: if Google is here in Brazil earning money from brazillian people, they should do it by the laws of the country.
I think the problem is that the laws here are different from the US ones, specially when on the privacy and free-speech stuff. Here, for example, you go to jail if you offend someone with respect to the skin color, even on the Internet. I suppose that this is not a crime on the US.
Nevermind the fact that Soviet sympathizers, and indeed Soviet agents, had penetrated some of the highest government offices. That's what happens when you oppose liberal fascism, though. You make alot of enemies who continue to assassinate your character long after you're gone.
Wanting is not a crime.
Do you honestly believe the privacy should trump child molestation?
Absolutes are wrong more often than not.
Which do you think applies more to "Don't Be Evil", protecting pedophiles, or protecting privacy?
And for the record, Google has the best privacy record out there. When the government wanted search data, Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo handed it over instantly. I believe Microsoft and Yahoo handed it over even BEFORE THEY WERE ASKED for the data.
Google fought to protect it. Privacy should be preserved, but not at the expense of other more important things.
If I were Google, and I had a motto of "Don't Be Evil", I wouldn't hand over all data and let people try to find pedophiles, but if I knew I had specific data on specific individuals that showed them to be pedophiles, or terrorists, I think I would in fact hand it over.
Not to mention, that I'm not sure any of us here are familiar with the laws in Brazil. Did Google have a choice in the matter?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Who's planning to commit a crime?
> use another search engine
like what? pedophind.com?
We're *all* suspected terrorists and pedophiles in the eyes of the government.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This was a new document format I developed, Portable Document Object, .PDO for short. My PDO files come up under the google search and suddenly everyone is going apeshit!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Please name one example of facism we have in the US where someone was prosecuted for speaking out against the government. Last time I checked, people do it every day in this country (including your post) and have the freedom to continue to do so.
The Constitution (not that Congress knows what that is) prevents such a state from forming.
You just keep insisting that the sky is falling. You do realize however that you remove credibility from the beliefs you intend to espouse when you make such statements, right?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'm not seeing anything in the article that says they either did or did not get warrants. Then again, I don't know if warrants are even required in Brazil.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
War Criminal's e-mail.
Thank you, Google, for supporting freedom and democracy around the world.
PatRIOTically,
Kilgore Trout
It is basically a flimsy list. Lots of it is just teenagers being raunchy. The line does get blurred between the 16-22 demographic.
As an aside: If this had been the US government, the Constitution and years of constitutional law and judicial rulings would have required a subpoena Brazil doesn't use "English" Common Law. It uses "Roman/French" Civil Law, which means the only thing that is pertinent are the current laws on book. Judges give little weight to past jurisprudence.
Also we don't really have a bill of rights. We have a section in the constitution that enumerates rights but it contradicts itself (Not a bill of rights because it doesn't supercede the constitution). It starts by saying that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law but then mentions a few special rights for special groups. People with college degrees get to be in a jail cell by themselves for example.
On Thursday they handed over information on terrorists
On Friday they handed over information on file-sharers
On Saturday they handed over information on everyone
Wednesday was the hardest. Every day after that it got easier and easier.
On Wednesday I punched a person who attacked my child
On Thursday I punched someone who said something mean to me
On Friday I punched someone who cut me off
On Saturday I just started punching everybody
yup. just another stupid slippery slope argument.
The patriot act.
The constitution only bars such a state when it is followed. The executive branch in this country has made a point of proclaiming they are above the constitution and the checks and balances it lays forth, and nobody has done anything about it. It's nice you think a piece of paper will somehow protect your freedoms. The reality is quite different.
Well done, in resorting to reductio ad absurdam you gave a good example of something that in does constitute probable cause.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not true. It can also include communicating in any form with an adult pretending to be a minor. You can be convicted of pedophile-esque crimes without an actual minor ever being in the picture, much less being harmed. Fascinating, really.
This is precisely the reasoning in search warrants. When you have a warrant or probable cause, then up-holding laws at that moment trumps the privacy of the suspect.
Honestly I will be alarmed and concerned when Google hands over data of every user in Brazil as a means to catch a small group of pedophiles.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I don't know that I would mod this funny... insightful, perhaps.
On Saturday they handed over information on everyone
Including information on the police, the lawyers, the judges, the politicians and their favourite prosties...
Help fight spam
Oh no, it's the easiest. Or do you want pedophiles to run free? Are you supporting kiddy porn? Thinkofthechildren!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Slashdot defends pirates. Slashdot defends PAEDOPHILES. Nothing to see here. Move along people.
Did you miss the "shunted its customers' internet traffic to data-mining equipment" sentence in the article or are you just illiterate? If it's the latter, there is help you know. I can give you a phone number to call.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
ANYONE can be a "suspect" in the eyes of the government if they want information about you. Granted, your logic is all fine and dandy IF the ruling bodies of this country could be trusted any further than I could throw the White House. (Just a FYI, I CAN'T)
It plays like this:
Gov't: "We want information on the online activities Mr. John Doe of 333 West Burbank Ave., WTF, TX 11123"
Web Service: "Sorry, that information is private to the individual."
Gov't: "Ok then, we want information on the online activities of the SUSPECTED TERRORIST/PEDOPHILE/CURRENT 'EVIL' PERSON OF THE MINUTE Mr. John Doe of 333 West Burbank Ave., WTF, TX 11123, but, we don't have a warrant so we'll just invoke the 'Patriot Act'"
Web Service: "Oh! Ok then!
The sad part is, Mr. Doe has never done anything more wrong in his meager life than cross against the light.
What's that do for your "warm fuzzies" for helping rid the world of "suspected evil"?
The word "suspect(ed)" is used faaaaar too liberally by the government in order to get what they want. If they had our best intentions at heart and only used "suspect" when it was GENUINELY APPROPRIATE, I'd have far less of a reason to complain or worry.
But they don't, so I do.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in Google. Yes, the whole "stop the pedo's" has a strong pull, but there are so many ways to track/monitor/obtain evidence against "wrong-doers" today that there is practically no circumstances where a corporation turning over a individual's private information should be acceptable.
Ignorance causes people to hide behind the falsity "If you have nothing to hide then why do you need privacy?". The sad fact is, everyone, and I really DO mean EVERYONE, has SOMETHING that they don't want to be made public knowledge, period.
The all mighty governing body of this or other countries does NOT need to know everything about everyone and nor should they.
Our society has regressed several hundred years and we're all the way back to the Salem Witch Trials where we are all going around accusing each other of being hepatics when now many of the REAL criminals and wrong-doers are RUNNING THE COURTS while the rest of the ones that should be being caught are still running around doing what they will because we're all too busy hurling accusations at innocent people.
Just to wrap up here, allowing the government access to private factors of an individual by simply slapping the term "suspect" in front of their name is an extremely slippery slope that will only lead to tears as yet more of the principals this country was originally founded on crumble to dust.
This was NOT a good thing.
This signature is lame.
Please name one example of facism we have in the US where someone was prosecuted for speaking out against the government.
McCarthyism
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Can you please be more specific?
The Patriot Act is flawed, but most people cite it with zero clue what they're talking about. It is a bipartisan supported mega-block of cludgy legislation. It did provide in-roads for warrantless wire-tapping (again, which both parties keep voting to continue) which is the closest we've gotten to facism, but it doesn't apply to the question I've asked.
When did we lose the freedom to question our government? We haven't! You prove my point for me, and prove yourself wrong by accusing our government of horrible deeds. Clearly you demonstrate that you have the freedom to do so.
As far as the Constitution, I'd argue the Legislative branch is abusing it considerably more. They passed the laws for warrantless wiretaps. Back when Newt Gingrinch was Speaker, he said it wasn't Congress' job to worry about whether or not the laws they passed were constitutional. I'd argue the "spirit" of the 14th Amendment proves him wrong, but that is a little tangential.
You say the Constitution is ignored and no one does anything? I say you are dead wrong. People have been pushing for Bush to be impeached, and the main reason it hasn't been successful is two-fold. 1 - They focus on invalid points, saying impeach him for starting a war, when Congress votes to go to war. 2 - Then they turn around and bring up wiretaps, again which is a shared blame with Congress. Congress can't hold him responsible without also pointing out their own blame.
But these things aren't ignored. People write about them every day. People are quite vocal, and they won't tolerate this shit. There will be plenty of new bodies in Washington next year.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Err... Isn't thinking of the children what got this whole thread started to begin with? Perhaps that's not such a good idea, eh?
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
I asked for a specific example and you provide none.
Please provide an example where you are not capable of speaking out against the government. In turn, I will cite how you in fact just did speak out against your government freely.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Apart from the fact that "pedophiles" and "child molesters" aren't the same group, but two partially overlapping groups, the chances are that you are the lowest of the low in someone's book. If it's okay to ignore someone's rights because he's a pedophile, then it's also okay to ignore someone's rights because that someone happens to be you. Sure, you'd disagree - but then again, the people who's rights you refused to defend also disagreed, and it didn't do them much good, so it won't do much good for you either.
Child molesters are certainly scum. However, if you allow them to be deprived of their rights - including the right to privacy - then you are eroding the rights of both them and the children. Please think of the children and nip this in the bud !
Please also understand that "pedophiles" are, as far as authorities are concerned, no different than "terrorists" - a convenient boogeyman to keep people scared and act as X in "if we don't pass this law, the X win". It's a lot easier to turn the Internet into a tighly-controlled channel - and thus unable to threaten the status quo by letting people publish leaked information anonymously - if you can sell it as protecting children rather than protecting politicians.
Finally, the pedophilia boogeyman is already starting to hurt the very children supposedly protected; as an extreme example, there was a teen who got busted for uploading her own pictures, not to mention the couple who were arrested for sending each other pictures of themselves. Of course it hurts everyone else too - for example, this guy was thrown to prison and put to sex offender register for writing fiction.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It was a valid use. Godwin's law came abut because Hitler would be used in extremely ridiculous examples.
Can people like you even talk about WWII ?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You get a cookie. I will concede that you brought up a good example.
However, despite the concession, I will point out that we universally declare that to be a big fucking mistake.
McCarthy stands as an example of what we can not allow. And our current government (for all its flaws) is not the McCarthy-era government.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I'm pretty sure filesharers are the lowest of the lowest in the books of the RIAA. So who gets to decide where to stop? Or where to start? Or what to do altogether? You? The RIAA? The government?
It's called the salami attack. You start with something everyone (or nearly everyone, except maybe the pedophiles) agrees with. Or at least doesn't dare to speak out against. Who'd stand up to defend the pedos? Many people would readily agree that this is actually a good idea. Some more won't care. And a few won't mind. Then you tackle the next fringe group. Terrorists are a good target, mostly because it's another group nobody readily allies with. In the wake you will find someone from another group that just happens to be in one of the first groups, which is a nice tool to say that this other group needs to be monitored, too, because you noticed that, say, a few gays also happened to be pedophiles, so it's time to monitor the gay communities. Again, some will agree, some will not care, some will not mind.
Over time, it becomes the norm. And it doesn't matter anymore whether you agree, care or mind.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Don't use 'they'. It's is not some grand conspiracy. It is a perfectly natural reaction. You refer to the 'slippery slope'; which is a logical fallacy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The pedophiles are just the first step. Brazil also wants Google to hand over information on those suspected of "hate speech against black people, Jews and homosexuals." Now that Google has caved on the pedophiles, those will be next.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Thursday was then that you had to hand over everything else since someone noticed a minor lied about his age in the info sheet to gain access to adult content.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They always start with the "lowest of the low" precisely because they know no one will object to it.
Problem is laws change over time. Once it was the liquor smugglers, the blacks, the jews, nowadays it's the peds or the maryjane growers.
Lot's of cultures have no problem marrying/having sex with 10-12 year olds, some of those cultures even in the US if I believe the recent news about that mormon sect.
Shakespeare had no problem in his puritan times with a play about Juliet being "not yet fifteen".
You'll have that sometimes...
Thank you for the interesting insights into Brazil's government!
The problem with the whole scenario is there was no probable cause. They simply stuck the words "suspected pedo" in front of the request and Google folded like a wet blanket.
For the record "Allegations" means accusations with no hard proof or evidence.
I'm not protecting anyone here, I'm simply saying, show me the evidence and I won't have a problem with Google turning over their info.
Funny how many people lose all good sense when the term "pedophilia" is brought up... They just fly off the handle and start foaming at the mouth and attacking anyone who looks like they are even remotely concerned about anything but "the children".
I will agree with you that Google has an excellent track record for individuals privacy, however without probable cause or any evidence to justify turning over this data, it's still a black mark on their nose.
This signature is lame.
You'll have that sometimes...
your average hysterical slippery sloper "ITS THE FIRST STEP TO 1984 FASCISM PAPERS PLEASE..." crowd sees any invasion of privacy, no matter how limited, no matter what the reason, no matter what the context, as something tantamount to pulling your pants down for a border guard
yes, "WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" as a mental state is a signifier pointer of hysteria eroding privacy. however, hysteria exists in the privacy defender camp as well. just look at some of the hypermanic comments here bordering on paranoid sschizophrenia. folks: if you wish to actually protect privacy, the first thing you want to do is avoid hysteria of your own
this handing over pedophile information in brazil is not the unstoppable slide into fascists police statehood. its just not. if you believe it is, you have ceded your ability to reason to your own fear uncertainty and denial, and you are in the same mental state as the hysterics you say are eroding privacy. hysterics for privacy rights is not an asset
so how do you protect privacy? with a rational, calm, realistic mind. if someone moves an inch down the road to no privacy rights, you don't act like they moved a mile down the road, and you don't act like its an unstoppable slide. the first thing you do when you think about prudence and realism, is you realize that sometimes, in limited ways, for valid reasons, with a set of rules in place and with public disclosure, privacy deserves to be violated. or that every now and then the authorities may overstep their bounds. shrug it off. really. privacy fundamentalism is not realistic, its just a naive idealism
when i say that, if you immediately imagine jack booted thugs marching through the street, you are not an asset to the fight for privacy rights. you simply aren't. you are simply a victim of the same kind of hysteria you imagine powers the "WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN CROWD"
gentle admonishment. not "OMG WERE ALL SLAVES". got it?
otherwise, you are of the "WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE PRIVACY" loony bin. passion for an issue is not useful unless it is also accompanied by an intelligence for an issue. a thrashing drooling psychotic fear is not a valuable asset in your fight for privacy rights. so calm the fuck down. argue rationally. or shut up. you're not helping any cause you think you are helping with histrionics
something like this disclosure in brazil is not an unstoppable slippery slope into fascism and 1984. it really isnt. so snap out of it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do you honestly believe the privacy should trump child molestation?
I believe privacy should trump having a hunch. There is a difference between "we have good reason to suspect that person and need something to nail the coffin" and "we think he might be a pedo, so hand over anything you have about him so we can get some evidence against him".
I'm fairly sure you can nail me as a terrorist by my google search records. Or as a communist. Or drug cook. Or as anything you want, bluntly. I have a wide range of interests, none of which are in any way "illegal" per se, but can sometimes be used for illegal means.
We're on the verge of making knowledge illegal. Scratch the verge, we're already there with making it illegal to inform people of bomb building. Yes, I know how to make a bomb out of rather easily gathered over the counter chemicals. That doesn't make me a terrorist. I know how to make LSD. That doesn't make me the next drug cook. I read "The Capital" online. That doesn't make me a communist. And I did a lot of other things online that can be forged into evidence with some creativity. I wouldn't even deem it impossible to make me a pedophile by my search records, maybe something I searched for was some sort of code for a pedo page.
That's the difference here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The sad part is that you got modded Insightful. Note that these are only *suspected* pedophiles, and apparently the authorities couldn't even be bothered to get a warrant to get the same information through legal, uncontroversial channels.
Kneejerk reactions like yours ruin society for the rest of us, far more so than a handful of pedophiles, real or alleged, ever could.
56,000 allegations of child molestation in Brazil linked to Orkut should be enough reason for Google to look at that data. That is more than a hunch. That is probable cause.
And handing over data is different from convincting someone. Your search results may lead someone to look at you, but that isn't grounds to lock you up.
However, for the record, Google is the only major search company that refused to hand over search data to the US government.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Actually, you are wrong.
From the article.
"He stressed that Brazilian officials had received 50,000 allegations of pedophilia in recent years.... Torres said he believed Google's data would incriminate around 200 pedophiles. They are exchanging telephone numbers, names of possible victims, the situations in which they live...90 percent of the 56,000 pedophilia allegations received in the past few years related to Orkut."
Sounds to me that an investigation has already begun, and that they have a decent idea that proof exists to incriminate a set number of people. And 56,000 allegations constitutes probable cause in my book.
Someone else here quoted another article stating Google did not immediately comply until the court system continued to apply further pressure.
I suggest you do further reading on the issue.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
My blog
I did miss that in the article, you're correct. I was responding to what the lawsuit alleges, not what the technician guessed.
That doesn't change the fact that no one (outside the gov) knows what information was really being "mined" or even monitored. It's somewhat unlikely that secret spy rooms contained more storage space than, say, Google which is what they'd need to mine data from "every single citizen." Your paranoia and fear-mongered are based on ignorance of the capabilities of their equipment, not knowledge of what it's actually doing.
Some of us don't see "secret NSA spy room" and wet our pants in fear that government computers are going to scan our email or web traffic. Now, I can see why someone who stalks children or downloads kiddie porn might get fearful.
If you're not speeding, you don't have to slam on your brakes when you see a traffic cop.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
Get me a warrant, you get the data. Easy as that. If you have so many allegations, where is the problem to convince a judge it's time to sign that subpoena?
I wouldn't even hand you my shopping list without one. With one, you can have whatever you demand.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So you're comparing file-sharers to pedophiles and terrorists?
Well, no, that might be so in the US and the UK, where the public seem to see paedophiles hiding in every corner.
Down here in South America we are not as squeamish. You can still praise a cute toddler to his/her mother in the street, and nobody will assume you are a paedophile.
Yeah, 'cause now it's not the reds, it's the bloody TERRORISTS! Very, very, very different, plain to see!
You'll have that sometimes...
Thats the problem, I bet I can get as many different answers as people I ask just on /.
Now move this responsibility to government. The problem with government is that while it is formed with the best of intents is that its comprised of people. The problem with people is that they have bias and unfortunately some are more than willing to use the power given to them to show it and even enforce that bias.
To get a wonderful idea, look at the recent raid in Texas of a "cult". Of course those who did the raid like to toss the word around because it has connotations that are not good. The problem is that it all originated from a false accusation yet the government is using its power, no people in the government are using the governments powers, to come up delay justice, look for crime, or coerce people to think a crime has been committed. Hell they have brought in psychological experts to declare just living there was abuse because of the religious beliefs. Does that give you pause? Just because someone thinks its wrong its automatically abuse even though no law was known to be broken they can just dig until they find one?
Want a second example? How about the recent abuses disclosed here about TSA practices that the TSA in Washington disavowed yet had gone on for months? Why did it happen, because no one questions the abuse anymore because they guilt anyone who opposes into adhering
"its for the children", "you want to protect children, right?"
That is the problem I have with governments getting sway over corporations we entrust our information too, whether we do so directly or indirectly. The government has no right to go on a fishing expedition, especially when its most likely at some egotistical power abusive official.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
When did we lose the freedom to question our government?
This was certainly a pretty good attempt.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
If there was the local equivalent of a judicially approved warrant provided to them, then I don't think the slippery slope argument would be particularly relevant. However, the article makes no mention of any such warrant or equivalent.
You'll have that sometimes...
Fail.
Slippery slope is not a valid argument.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Wish I had mod points myself.
Innocent until proven guilty is not by any means a recent concept. The concept was around even during ancient greece.
This idea is key to democracy, as otherwise, there can be no freedom if everyone has to prove their innocence at every turn. Because the US is turning into a guilty until proven innocent state, especially where heinous crimes like terrorism or child abuse are concerned (and Iraq--musn't forget Iraq), it is exactly the kind of indicator that this country is turning away from democracy and into something far worse.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Could we have just a moment of clarity and really think about something before we run circles screaming "All Governments are EVIL!". Complying with a legal governments request is hardly being someones bitch, not when someone is involving you with their crimes. Lets be real here, pedophiles saving their photos on a website involves the website. We can't reasonably expect all websites to be responsible for everything it's users post and upload for storage but the website is still being involved. If a friend of yours asks you to hold a bag for him and give it to someone else and that bag has a bomb in it he has involved you. Maybe you trust that friend and never peek in the bag and hence are innocent of any wrong doing, but if you do look in the bag I don't think anyone has any question as to what the right thing to do would be. Is there really any question as to what the right thing to do about pedophiles? While we are at it could someone please point out how chasing pedophiles in Brazil will cut in to my liberties here in the USA? Also please point out the "tyranny, totalitarianism".... lived here all my life and I keep looking for it when I hear people talking about how bad things are but never see it. Maybe things could be bit better... but do you really have any idea how much worse it could be?
There's a difference between reporting what you think is illegal activity on your property and 1984-ish total information awareness. If you caught people using your blogs or your game's chat channels to trade kiddie porn links, you're saying you wouldn't report it?
I'm big on privacy, and I don't see the problem here compared to phone companies letting the government listen in on whoever it tells them is a terrorist.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I hope you don't expect that to protect you. You see that is how its supposed to work. Here is how it really works. They already have a sympathic judge lined up when they need the subpoena. Its pretty much paperwork anyway. Then they go a trolling. Fine more evidence and get a subpoena for that. There was a time when judges where to stand between you and law enforcement. Now they are on law enforcements side.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
That has been discussed here in this story-thread quite a bit.
If the data is hosted on servers outside of the country, then they can't get a warrant for that data. Brazil's court system lacks the jurisdiction.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Yes. Really. We've tested the hypothesis in small groups and under controlled circumstances -- Google the Stanford Prison Experiment. It happens whenever one group cedes authority to another group. Abu Ghraib was an uncontrolled version of the experiment scaled up, and the TSA goon who threatens you with "well I say it's a knife, now hand it over or I'll have you arrested for interfering with the safety of this airport, which is a federal facility" in response to "sir, that item with the bristles is not a knife, it's a toothbrush" is the uncontrolled experiment scaled down.
Yes, it is. We're primates. Killing other primates not of our tribe is what we're good at. Every free nation has the capacity within itself to screw up. All we need is an excuse. Most Germans (even the Jews) of the Weimar Republic would have said the same thing in the 30s; "sure, it might get bad, but it'll never get that bad!"
America's been lucky enough not to screw it up that badly so far. But when you get down to the genes, there's nothing fundamentally different between Americans, Germans, Chinese, or Russians. All we need is an excuse.
Regarding the "slippery slope" as a logical fallacy (which it is) is exactly how the people in power are able to do such power-grabs. So long as X + 1 does not infer x + 10, then there's nothing wrong with X+1.
The real logical fallacy is ignoring psychology. Put a frog in a pot of boiling water, and it'll jump out. Put a frog in room temperature water, and let it boil, it'll never notice as it boils to death.
We won't notice, x+1, so we'll ignore it. Then tomorrow when it's x+1 again, we'll be fine. The reason the "slippery slope" is relevant, despite it's inherent logical flaws is that it refers to a real strategy that actually exists, and is used against the population.
Simply grabbing as much power as you can by claiming it's against a common enemy is a common strategy for gaining powers that can later be used to control the very people who thought it was protecting them. See step 1
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
I did not believe I had made a counterpoint to that, I am aware that abuse investigations are occurring in Brazil, HOWEVER, they seem to be using a "shotgun" approach to solving the problem.
The article does lack the information as to how may accounts they turned over. If they had turned over 200 accounts with probable cause and they find 195 abusers, great!
When they turn over 200 accounts with NO probable cause and no evidence and they turn up 195 abusers........ I'm glad that they were taken down but I really cannot agree or approve of the method.
As I stated before, if they showed Google evidence and/or a warrant and they complied, all my concerns go away.
It just sounds like there was neither... I hate poorly detailed articles... I hope you can prove me wrong!
This signature is lame.
I dunno, man, but with the Indiana primary coming up, You tell me.
You'll have that sometimes...
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Joseph C. Wilson
Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissma
On Sunday they noticed a sharp fall in the crime rates
On the following Monday a sense of relaxation amongst neighbours
On Tuesday people smiled more
On Wednesday gun laws were less needed yet more heavily question
On Thursday people voted in a President who openly admitted [s]he didn't want to rule the world
On Friday they everyone wondered why they'd been so finatical and absolutist about the ILLUSION of privacy and the centuries old constitution in the first place
Because you can - or because you should?
So... what's the difference between a communist in the McCarthy-era government and a terrorist in the Bush-era government? Ever heard about Guantanamo or Patriot Act?
It seems like the US government always needs a vague foe (be it a with mustache in Russia or with a beard in an Afghanistan cave) to scare the population and keep it under tight control.
Too bad it takes you 50 years to realize it!
That is one boat you have plenty of company in. Just the other day I did a google search on lolicon. It was a anime/magna term that I wasn't familiar with so I did what I normally do. I google it. I was treated to a bunch of links to websites feature comic books about sex with underage girls. I closed it immediately of course but its in googles records now.
When I want to know something just about the first thing I do is google it. When Mythbusters blows something up I've googled the bomb material they used. From my google records I look like a pyromainca murdering racist pedophile who wants to be a homosexual elf. What one search for online shouldn't never be used by law enforcement.
On the subject of lolicon I should have wikied instead but I read about is legal status. I understand that child porn picture are illegal because there is a real child involved. I find the subject of lolicon disgusting but should it be illegal? No child is hurt because they are all drawings.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Apart from the fact that "pedophiles" and "child molesters" aren't the same group
That's rihgt, just becuase someone likes feet (Latin: pedis) deosn't make them a paedophile."Not sure if you're aware of this, but most teenagers who go on homocidal rampages spend a lot of time fantasizing about that sort of thing before they actually commit the crime. THe more material they have abvailable to fantasize with, the futher progress down the path of becoming a murderer themselves."
(paraphrasing Jack Thompson on why we should ban games such as Grand Theft Auto)
If you wait until you're personally being oppressed, it quite possibly will be too late to do anything about it.
I don't see proof that the US government acted against him in any coordinated manner, though individuals most certainly did.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Google logo change.
They're living up to their motto. Harbouring suspected paedophiles would definitely cross that line.
Did Rosen and Weissman hand over classified documents of national security? The trial isn't over and I don't presume to know the facts of the case, but that seems to be a whole different situation that merely criticizing the administration.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Free Speech Zones are a good example of limitations of rights. Forget being prosecuted from speaking out against the government, these make it so you can't speak out against the government in person. A specific area for the 1st Amendment is asinine.
Please provide an example where you are not capable of speaking out against the government.
Go to any public appearance of George Bush holding a protest sign. You can hold the sign - 4 blocks away in a fenced pen, surrounded by armed police, filmed by said police, and then put on a list to be passed around to other agencies.
In turn, I will cite how you in fact just did speak out against your government freely.
Yeah, explain away.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
modern day shitheaded witch hunt. in middle ages, it was 'heresy' word that ensured your doom, now its just 'suspicion' of pedophile that can doom your life. dont like a neighbor ? snitch him for being a pedophile.
Read radical news here
If a US citizen spoke out against the US government during the McCarthy era, they were put on trial.
If a US citizen speaks out against the US government today, nothing happens.
If you don't see the distinction, I won't bother trying to beat you over the head with it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
That's funny, because I've seen people protest right outside the White House, and right outside Congress all the time. They're never fenced in or any such nonsense. My wife (not out of protest, but just for fun) took a picture holding up a Canadian flag in front of the White House.
Next time, try again, but without the lies so much.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
You seem to think that pedophilia isn't actually a problem and that people are using it as a boogeyman... but seriously, have you not been paying attention to all of the molestation happening in the Catholic Church? I run a very small blog website and I recently got some jackhole who started an "Intergenerational Love" website, which was a pedophilia advocacy blog. This problem is real and you can't just dismiss it.
I'm not commenting on what Google did or did not do wrong, I'm saying you cannot be so flippant and dismiss pedophilia as a non-problem.
Only when people gather in large numbers, and only when it is necessary for safety. You can stand on any corner in this country and blast the President 99.9% of the time. When you get thousands of protesters being disruptive to other people, then measures are taken. When we first went to war, there was an organized protest of like 100,000 people in New York. People were laying in the street blocking traffic, etc. People attacked others, etc.
Free speech doesn't give you the right to break the law. Harassing people as they walk down the street, inciting riots, blocking traffic, etc. These are laws being broken.
What people fail to realize is that when you harass and annoy people, you aren't winning people over to your side. Neutral parties are more likely to suddenly disagree with you if you have a disruptive protest. It is the same thing with the pro-life protesters who carry huge pictures of aborted babies. All you're doing is disgusting and annoying people.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Fatality.
I'm still surprised that I haven't heard more outrage about the fundamental mormon raid in Texas now that the supposed abused teen is probably a 30 something living in CO. Further the accused guy is on parole in Arizona and wasn't picked up, or even questioned before the raid. Even scarier, the police questioned the kids without lawyers or guardians present. The state will provide them lawyers in two weeks
The parents are being forced to submit DNA to start the process of getting their kids back.
It seems like the police went in with shoddy evidence for a blanket warrant, which they got. Sure the people in the compound may very well have been breaking laws, but wouldn't that be all the more reason for the authorities to wait until stronger evidence was found? It's the over the top actions that worry me, not waiting to make a case before getting gung ho.
Obviously Google has been resisting doing this for a long, long time... but what are you really going to do when the police is knocking on your door saying they think this guy is hosting pedophilia pictures in a restricted Orkut Photo Album and it's incredibly easy for an admin just to open it up and check? What happens when the admin sees there ARE actually pedophilia pictures in there? Are you really not going to turn over this guy's information? He's hurting kids and what's worse is that you are helping him. What kind of financial disaster is Google going to undergo when it comes out that they were told they were hosting pedophiles and did nothing to stop it and more kids got hurt?
I assume you mean Fascism and not the non-word Facism (pronounced Face-ism?)
Oxford English defines Fascism as:
noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Don't think that describes the U.S.?
Take a look at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Iraq for some great modern examples.
And what will you say when it turns out that some of the "pedophiles" were actually just political opponents? Governments are neither good nor evil, only individual acts by people are.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
That's "the slippery soapbox."
True BUT Do you have pictures of child porn in your online photo album?
The point is its not search records, as far as i can see, being released its the unlocking of online photo albums.
At the end of the day we need to redefine "rights", there are certain people who just shouldnt have any full stop.
Human Rights is a load of balls, There have been more criminals getting away with something because of their "human rights" than decent people being protected by them.
Today I saw my first Google ad for bulk emailers. I could not believe my eyes. I clicked on it to double check and sure enough, it was a real ad for a real bulk emailer guaranteeing 99% delivery and bullet-proof hosting.
Google, the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Support the spammers and you are no friend of mine. DIAF.
Brazil.... tanana-na-na-na... Brazil...
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Wanna stop your pro child pornography speech now?
The troubling thing is that the distinction isn't clear ... I can't tell if you mean that "nothing happens" in the "it's acceptable" sense or in the "there's no trial" sense. Depends on who you are, whether you protested in a "free speech zone", who you've phoned in the past few years, or which websites you've visited I guess. And that makes it worse, not better -- trials at least would allow for some form of check and balance oversight system.
A transparent government exposes bad laws/inconsistent enforcement to public scrutiny. That doesn't seem to be "en vogue" anymore.
"The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
You might as well have mentioned the Alien and Sedition Acts (which really did outlaw speech against the government). Can you bring up anything that applies today and hasn't been overturned by either the courts or later legislation?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
One of my best friends is a pedophile, who would never dream of acting on his desires, or harming or violating a child in any way. Actually violating a child is completely different, and if he was ever to do so, I would beat him to the edge of death and report him to the authorities.
Shitstorm ensues.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That's funny, because I've seen people protest right outside the White House, and right outside Congress all the time. They're never fenced in or any such nonsense.
Well, it certainly is comforting to have an experienced observer like you on the scene to give everyone the skinny about what's really going on in the country. However for people who prefer to have their reportage from people who don't have their heads in the sand they need only do the most basic Google searches. Here are a few of many, many examples and they don't even include all the abuses by local and state agencies, particularly those that need to justify their lucrative homeland security funding.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11419res20030923.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/washington/21protests.html
And, oh, oh, Fox News so IT MUST be true!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96474,00.htmlNext time, try again, but without the lies so much.
Don't worry, that appears to be only one of several statements you have made that have come back to bite your ass today.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
Yeah - no one would be arrested for voicing their opinions. Like in NYC during the Republican convention. Or just standing next to someone who was...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/nyregion/12video.html
The FBI wouldn't spy on you for being in a peaceful anti-war group, right?
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MIL20060127&articleId=1835
No one would be arrested because they wore an anti-Bush Tshirt, right?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/17/3243/
And you accuse others of not seeing? Look the f*ck around.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Re: Boiling a frog. http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
The fiction is the pornography in question - you did know the term covers literature too, rather than just pictures ? From the link, with emphasis added by me for your benefit:
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Dear Anonymous Coward who thinks that this is punishing the guilty,
Please, keep in mind the fact that it is also opening the door to punishing the innocent. It may not punish the innoncent just yet. But it opens the door to it and that is why you are the sicko. Using any excuse to open the door to punishing the innocent is how freedom dies. We don't like that. The End.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I never thought I was going to say this, but... DON'T waste time RTFA. Is doesn't even tell 10% of the whole story.
I'll try to explain this the best I can , since the majority here commenting aren't from Brazil, and never used Orkut.
Basically, Orkut is the MySpace and Facebook of Brazil. Obviously, it's a big target for pedos. And, guess what. A lot of sub-14's use Orkut. Yeah, that means little boys and girls. And worse: little girls like to show themselves to the world. But, that's another case...
Well, the thing is: until some time ago, anyone could see others peoples scraps (messages on the person's profile), photos and etc. And usually, pedos would "show off" their victims, so anybody could see them. We had a lot of these cases on the news. I'll even link one, in portuguese (sorry):
http://www.juristas.com.br/n_30038~p_203~mp+quer+identificar+autor+de+pedofilia+no+orkut
Some tidbits of that link (loose translation):
"This Monday, thousands of Orkut users acted against the owner of the profile. More that 3.000 messages were posted on the Pedo's profile in the last days. All along the weekend, it totalled more than 70.000. Until 8pm of this Monday, around 550 communities against the criminal were created. Orkut (the service) has taken down the original profile, but new ones with similar name were created, along with 12 photos of minors engaging in sexual acts."
You see, that was what Orkut (Google) was doing. Just deleting the pedo profiles WHEN someone complained. And, when the police requested the information about who created the account, his e-mail, and all other info, Orkut wouldn't give anything away.
Now, fast forward to today. Scrapbooks, and photobooks are restricted to friends of the profile only, if the owner wishes. So, pedos can share photos between them freely, without anyone knowing. Unless, of course, someone leaks the info (be photos or profiles).
As I said, similar cases like the one I cited happen(ed) A LOT, and this (poorly written) Yahoo news is just a result of a lenghty process.
Now, you guys can say whatever you want, but consider this:
If a pedo profile is found, and Orkut (Google) knows any info about the creator, it will have to pass the info to the police when requested, no?? Well, it never happened, so the Congress had to DEMAND IT, and what we see today is just that. Orkut giving away the info of these profiles.
Oh yeah, sorry if it what's written above is not very, but English's not my native language.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.
Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.
Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.
Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
They should choose to, not be compelled to.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Every once in a while, you hear a story of somebody taking a roll of child porn to CVS to get it developed, or taking their computer to be repaired with child porn on it, and the pictures get turned over to the police. When this happens, I don't usually get outraged at the violation of the criminal's privacy. Is this case really any different?
Consider a theoretical case where a group of people meet regularly in a hotel room to trade child porn. Even though it may be occurring in a "private" place behind a locked door, it is still on somebody else's property, and if the property's owner finds out what's going on (perhaps a maid finds the pictures while cleaning the room) they may report it to the authorities. Similarly, if Orkut users upload illegal content to Google's servers, and Google finds the content, the fact that it was in a "locked" album seems irrelevant. I don't feel bad for the users in question, and I don't see a slippery slope here.
There are distributed, encrypted, anonymous-by-design file sharing networks ideal for sharing controversial content. Orkut is not one of them -- it is a privately owned commercial site that can do what it wants.
Orkut's terms of service probably state that Google reserves the right to view any content posted, even in a "restricted" album, in order to remove any content it finds in violation of their terms of service. They probably also state that they may freely share information with law enforcement agencies if they deem it necessary to the legal process. As such, it was well within Google's rights to do what they did.
Finally, I would like to point out that Google has not turned over the identities of any Orkut users, only some of their files; the article implies that these files are the images they posted to the online album. (Though, if found to be illegal, the images will presumably provide the authorities with the evidence they need to get a warrant to find the users' identities.)
No, I'm simply saying it's being exaggerated and turned into a boogeyman in an extremely cynical power-grab attempt.
Enough to know that the priests who were/are a part of it didn't find their victims through the Internet. Also enough to know that the priests got their position of trust in the first place by appeals to fear - "we are your protectors agains the forces of darkness" - just like the politicians who keep on bringing up boogeymen are trying to do.
Catholic Church's problem is that people turned out to be more loyal to the institution of the church than the principles it was supposed to stand for. Thus when they found out about their fellow priests doing bad things to defenseless children entrusted to their care, they didn't make this information public, no, they helped hide said activities. That's a very human thing to do, to stand with your fellows even when they are wrong - but it can lead straight to Hell, as it did in that case.
I'm not, I'm simply against hysteric exaggeration of it, where anything is allowed in the name of combatting it.
But tell me: should it be illegal to start such a blog ? And if it is, should it be illegal for me to post this message, since it could be taken as defending the right of someone who advocated pedophilia to do so ? Should I be registered in a sex offender list for posting it anyway ? After all, arguing that pedophiles have rights might indicate sympathy, so better safe than sorry, right ?
I'm not commenting on Google's actions either, since there simply isn't enough information to do so, and I'm not being flippant or dismissing pedophilia as a non-problem. I'm simply pointing out that it is very rare - I mean actual pedophilia which means attraction to preteens rather than merely attraction to people under 18 - and that most pedophiles never molest children, just like most heterosexual males never rape women. And, of actual child molestation, most is done by someone who knows the child IRL, often by a family member.
Given all this, the "online sexual predator" is an absurd stereotype of a nearly nonexistent phenomenom and needs to be dismissed, so that resources can be used in a rational manner based on actual reality rather than wasted fighting a scarecrow conjured up by some ruthless politicians in order to ascend to power on the backs of raped children and innocent people falsely accused of being pedophiles, as well as actual pedophiles who have nonetheless never actually done anything to any child.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I don't think the point of dispute here is the definition of slippery slope.
The problem with the slippery slope justification is that a "slippery slope" just proposes the theory that a marginal increase in "X" will also increase the threshold of tolerance to an amount equal to or greater than needed for the next increase in "X".
What would need to be proven is that acceptance of an marginal increase of "X" must necessarily result in a sufficient increase in tolerance for the next marginal increase.
One day we give warnings to traffic offenders, so we would then give fines, leading to jail time, and in the end we will be put to death for jaywalking. Why? Because we gave warnings. Slippery slope.
Why doesn't it work in this context? Because it's absurd in this context. The train of logic isn't necessarily true. So what do we need to do? We need to examine each case within the context of the case. This may require some judgement but that is the burden and gift of intelligence.
It depends on how you define "probable cause". These accounts have been denounced. There might be screencaps (which can be forged, I know) attached. In some situations the public information available strongly suggests of pedophilia.
It's like you saw someone screaming in your neighbour, a shot, and then some red liquid splattered on the window. Perhaps the screams and the shot came from a movie, and the liquid is just ketchup. But it is enough to warrant an investigation. IAB, btw.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
>>> Harassing people as they walk down the street, inciting riots, blocking traffic, etc. These are laws being broken.
Yeah, and you better pay for all that tea too!
While repealed now, it serves as a reminder that this can and does happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
You might as well have mentioned the Alien and Sedition Acts (which really did outlaw speech against the government). Can you bring up anything that applies today and hasn't been overturned by either the courts or later legislation?
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
Mostly right except you are forgetting several things:
Had Brazil requested help from the FBI they probably would have gotten their data. By trying to force a company to produce something it didn't have, they just created an impasse. Handling cases involving international corps isn't as simplistic as people try to make it out to be. In this case - Google US couldn't just acknowledge Brazil's sovereignty without disregarding the US', and Google BR just couldn't comply with the request because they didn't have the data to give up.
Indeed. You would prevent more child molestations by preventing fathers from having access to their children than restricting registered sex offenders.
The statistics for "sex offenders" repeating is worse than you'd think, because it's not differentiated at all. People arrested for mooning a police officer, urinating in public, or soliciting a prostitute aren't any more likely to molest children than any of us others, yet they're prevented from doing so, and ostracized and persecuted long after any sentence has been served. And, honestly, a guy seeking out a grown-up prostitute has already shown that he's sexually attracted to grown-ups, so he's probably less likely to molest a child than the average man. The religious right might want to believe that all "sin" is the same, but it truly isn't.
I'll be surprised if the OP can say he never read this quotation, since he paraphrased it so nicely, to wit:
"Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
--H.L. Mencken (1917)
cited from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken
-- Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
Slippery slope is not a valid argument. Nope. You fail. While slippery slope may be used as a logical fallacy, it does not mean that it is a logical fallacy.
So for example, while people (most often police officers [an appeal to authority BTW] and the like who teach about capital-D Drugs in school) will often say that marijuana leads to "harder drugs". Although there may be some correlation (amongst people who are inclined to use illegal recreational drugs), there certainly is no cause and effect or trend towards marijuana users becoming heroine or crack users for example. Thus in this situation we have a logical fallacy.
On the other hand, people who are inclined to hurt (non-human) animals are also inclined to violence in general (towards the human animal). So there is very definitely a logical slippery slope here.
One can also see this trend in cigarette laws. Where I live they first raised the smoking age, and over the years it has gotten more and more repressive (and seemingly easier) to get even more repressive anti-smoking legislation passed. It appears (to me at least) that the same (types) of people who want smoking completely outlawed are and the one's introducing more and more legislation are the same people. And yes they use the think-of-the-children fallacy in their arguments as well.
From Wikipedia: In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. And, The slippery slope argument may or may not involve a fallacy...
Liken it to the death penalty for murderers-
-At first, it required a fair amount of evidence to prove guilty.
-People hated murderers so much that they started loosening laws regarding how we caught murderers.
-Police decided they wanted even easier access to information that would help them get murderers, so much so that they sometimes got personal data from innocent people too. People were ok with that, because they hate murderers.
Police did one more power grab, and now obtain personal data about everybody - innocent or guilty- to catch murderers. People are ok because they hate murderers.
Police now have the ability to single you and your family out for belief xyz. You're no longer ok with the power police have, but it's too late, because they eroded your rights little by little.
Slippery Slope is not a logical argument because x+1 does not imply x+10. Slippery slope is a strategy to watch out for because (x + 1 * 10) is easier to get past the general public than (x+10).
And if you read my argument, you'd see that I agree with you that it's not a logical argument, and is instead a fallacy. But that doesn't make it less relevant in this discussion.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
U.S. law also considers anything that advertises itself as containing visual depictions of children in sexual activity to also be child pornography. So if I were to create a link to whitehouse.gov on a web page, and if the web page were to claim the link pointed to pictures of children having sex, that web page would also count as child pornography according to the definitions in the U.S. Code. If you were to have that web page in your cache, you could be prosecuted and convicted of possession of child pornography even though no actual images were involved. The only question is how much the government wants you behind bars. Of course, I could also be prosecuted for creating the page in the first place.
That's how the police state starts.... Make sure everyone has violated enough laws that they can be imprisoned at a moments notice. If everyone is guilty of an imprisonable offense, only people who speak in favor of the government have freedom of speech.
Support SETI@home
I would also like to add that just because:
(X+10) = Bad;
(x+1) != (x+10)
does not mean that:
(x+1) = good. This would be the straw man, as you cannot infer this information from the argument at hand.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
It's Weissman, and they weren't speaking out, dipshit, they were spying. And, if you cannot tell the difference, stfu.
You're talking to a generation and a forum that grew up on Doom and Quake. The push to control content at the government level:
1. won't work, the fictional material and violent games will just be forced underground.
2. is in violation of the 1st amendment and the rights to free speech.
3. punishes the many for the psychosis of the few.
If you had RTFA, you would see that the government didn't get warrants for any of these "suspects" and freely admitted that there wasn't enough evidence to do so. This isn't a case of some cop going before a judge and saying "Your honor, I need to subpoena this guy's records because I suspect he's a pedophile and here's my preliminary evidence." This was a case of the government saying "Here's a list of names. Give us all their information and don't ask any questions."
Which has the likely result that instead of the police actually investigating anything they will instead pick names at random to ask Google for information about. Requirements for warrants arn't just about protecting the innocent from police harassment. They also help keep police officers focussed on the job they are intended to be doing.
I do. Several of the pictures taken when I was a kid was of me and my brother nude. My mother even showed these pictures to my girlfriends to embarrass me -- a fairly typical thing, I believe.
By the new standards, these pictures are now called child porn, and I break the law by not handing them over to the police and turning myself in. Yet, they're a valuable part of my childhood, and not something I want to part with. Yes, I really was nude. More than once. Where I grew up, it was unheard of for kids below school age to wear clothes for bathing.
I also have some manga pictures, some of which may be of girls that are hypothetically under 18, if they had been human. I don't care -- they tend to have big bazookas, so I don't think of them as children.
If you do see either as wrong, I think it's you who have a sexual deviation problem, not me.
Google's problem started when they opened a office in Brasil.
Orkut use in Brazil is widespread. Since the beggining people used Orkut's forums to open communities for spreading racism, nazism, pedophilia and other types of behaviour that are considered criminal by brazilian law.
I don't know if by lack of knowledge or haste the brazilian DA started to sending subpoenas to Google's office and the typical scenario happens again: the offending data is in another country and the local office has no power to hand them to the local judiciary system.
Maybe Orkut data will be moved to Brazil, maybe they convinced the brazilian MP to present it's requests properly in USA. I think that arrangement will be more clear in the next days.
Alien and Sedition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
McCarthyism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
It's illegal to say, "I want to kill the President of the United states":
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQEQOvyGbBtY&ei=itcQSJPGIYjiiAHk34W2Cg&usg=AFQjCNEVzrtecdGft4od0D9XPCzApeba6A&sig2=EW7R1eozHcnc6LIGz5Lz3g
Political Protests outside the "protest area" I thought this was America and any public land was "protest area":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones
http://www.911blogger.com/node/14179
Moral principles are another example. Take pacifism and non-violence. As Sam Harris points out, a single maniac with a knife could lay waste to a city of millions if it contained nothing but pacifists.
What we need - and what we have, to some degree - is a system that looks at the conflicting interests between parties and evaluates whose claims deserve priority. Rights do get violated in this way, but it is - quite obviously - the only sensible course. Our evaluations change over time, too. Smokers used to have the 'right' to smoke anywhere they pleased in their pursuit of happiness. No longer - thank goodness. Our evaluations of the rights of pedaphiles to privacy may one day change too. For now, we place importance of children's right to safety and security above the importance of pedaphiles' right to privacy.
The point is that pedaphiles being denied privacy today does NOT mean that every citizen will be denied privacy tomorrow. It may be a slippery slope, but the solution is build good steps into the slope, not to mindlessly level the whole playing field with absolute rights and eliminate any possibility of contextual logic and reasoning.
A-Bomb
The sad part is, Mr. Doe has never done anything more wrong in his meager life than cross against the light.
Thus is exactly the kind of person poorly supervised police officers are likely want to target. They'd want to avoid "career criminals" who know how to play the system (or have lawyers who do). Similarly it's dangerous to go trying to arrest a well armed terrorist suspect, especially one who might view dead police officers as having more "points" than dead civilians.
Ignorance causes people to hide behind the falsity "If you have nothing to hide then why do you need privacy?". The sad fact is, everyone, and I really DO mean EVERYONE, has SOMETHING that they don't want to be made public knowledge, period.
It isn't even a matter of "public knowledge". Plenty of people have little reason to trust even their own government, let alone random foreign governments. Even if you trust "your government" do you trust everyone they trust? (As well as all the entities which have infiltrated either "your government" or some entity they happen to trust. Your information can easily end up in all sorts of places due to combinations of "trust" and spying.)
If a US citizen speaks out against the US government today, nothing happens. CHARLESTON, WV - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against the United States Secret Service and Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of White House Advance, on behalf of a West Virginia couple who were arrested at a Fourth of July presidential appearance at the state Capitol because they were wearing t-shirts critical of the president
Are you ignorant or dishonest?
You can't take the sky from me...
There is a reasonable middle ground. It's called a warrant. The government shows to a judge that they have sufficient evidence to show probable cause a) that the person did the crime, and b) that the person they're asking for information from has specific and relevant information to this case.
Before a & b they need to convince the judge that a crime actually happened. Where as with the kind of "fishing trip" you don't have to actually prove anything at all. Just that if you look in enough "water" you are likely to find some "fish".
You can't take the sky from me...
"the chances are that you are the lowest of the low in someone's book."
You are so right, "kestasjk" has a vaguely slavic sounding name and we all know that slavs are untermenschen, so, yes, he is the lowest of the low in quite a lot of people's books, particularly Mein Kampf.
it says SUSPECTED pedophiles, moron. anyone can be a suspect. if i pick up the phone and snitch you for no reason, you are a suspect too.
Read radical news here
You just got signed up for NAMBLA.
and you lose. nazi experience is one of the most important lessons this civilization has learned. stupid bambinos jumping on memes like godwin's 'law' do not reduce the importance of the lesson. fuck godwin, fuck illiterate bambinos.
Read radical news here
Even if you were right:
(a) Pedophile != child molestor
(b) *Alleged* pedophile != pedophile
(c) about 3000 people who have nothing to do with any of this have had their information turned over. Again, they are just collateral damage, they are not suspected of anything.
And so on. What about this is so hard to understand? Yeah it's a terrible crime, but 3000 people are suffering for no reason, and the other 200 *may or may not* be capable of having some sort of aptitude for it.
We're not talking actual crimes, actual offenses, actual courts...it's all behind the scenes, and innocent people are getting caught in the dragnet. You'll understand when it's someone you care about on the stand, who was just unlucky enough to be on the internet on the wrong day.
I would defend pedophiles. It's those child molesting pedophiles who are the bad people.
Truth be told - People aren't really making it all that difficult to have their data mined. If you put information out there, who's to say the government or any other company shouldn't mine it. In the end, you were the one who made the decision to make it available.
We're on the verge of making knowledge illegal. Scratch the verge, we're already there with making it illegal to inform people of bomb building. Yes, I know how to make a bomb out of rather easily gathered over the counter chemicals. That doesn't make me a terrorist. I know how to make LSD. That doesn't make me the next drug cook. I read "The Capital" online. That doesn't make me a communist.
Knowlage can also let you know when "authorities" or "the media" are talking nonsense about something. Knowing how to build a bomb or produce LSD also tends to enable you to know how not to do these things (or what has so little chance of sucess that it is pointless.) e.g. the whole binary liquid explosive aircraft bombing thing. Being able to identify bovine excrement can be a very powerful skill.
To defend with my life this data from any unauthorized access by any individual, organization, or government.
(Instead of swearing on a bible/flag/etc, you'd swear on a hard drive, for epic lulz.)
Why don't we have offshore databanks, immune to access by anyone?
Armed gaurds, dead man switches, anti-aircraft guns, and a fat internet pipe on some rocky crag out in the ocean.
Yet it still fails because it makes the jump from subpoenaed information concerning possible criminal acts to "everyone".
It goes from crime, crime, crime, everyone. That logic fails.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
56,000 allegations of child molestation in Brazil linked to Orkut should be enough reason for Google to look at that data. That is more than a hunch. That is probable cause.
Put against Brazil's population of 186 million the number looks less impressive. It might also be interesting to know how many people are actually making these allegations and if they have anything in common. If most (or even all) of the allegations were to be from members of the same political group then it's probably them who need investigation.
If the data is hosted on servers outside of the country, then they can't get a warrant for that data. Brazil's court system lacks the jurisdiction.
There are most likely "channels" which could be used. Especially if the whatever is also against the law where the data is actually being held.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
like some neighbor suspecting that you are a pedophile and taking up the phone to snitch you, or some woman coming up and claiming that you raped her, out of the blue.
in either case, you get harassed. in the latter case, you get arrested before being harassed, even without any evidence.
thats your probable cause.
Read radical news here
Having read your arguments I now suspect you all of being pedophiles.
You invoked Godwin's Law, and lose.
Misstatements of Godwin's Law are very convenient for neo-NAZIs.
Never Again!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
if i pick the phone and snitch you, you become a suspect too.
Read radical news here
everyone I've seen invoking "godwin's law" have without fail turned out to be nazi sympathisers.
Bush has protesters all the time, and they aren't arrested. This seems to be an isolated case of an idiot making a ridiculous arrest, and there are (as the link points out) repercussions for such an act.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I haven't been following the news recently. When did Dubya resign as POTUS and get the chief justice of the Brazilian Supreme court to appoint him as president of Brazil?
Except McCarthy acted on thin evidence while those in Guantanamo are mostly (if not all) POWs caught in combat. Theres not much chance of them being innocent.
Funny how violent peace protesters get aint it?
Not really. Those are responses to known threats as well as the overthrowing of an oppressive regime. Dont other people deserve the same freedom you claim not to have even if they aren't born in the USA?
The casualties of Iraq have been mostly soldiers. Either our VOLUNTEERS or their bully-soldiers. There hasnt been that much "collateral damage". It is hardly the bloodbath that liberal media sources portray.
Mormons do not practice any sort of incestuous, abusive, nor polygamous practices. Those are break off rebel groups.
To put it in perspective, the groups that do that have as much to do with the "Mormon" church as Muslim fundamentalists have to do with real Muslims.
The boogyman dosnt exist. pedophiles do.
Soooo we shouldnt arrest anyone because it just will progress and we will eventually arrest everyone?
When did taking drugs become a crime? Yes crimes are sometimes committed by people under the influence of drugs, or to support addictions.
But why should someone be treated as a criminal simply for ingesting a plant or chemical? Because they might commit a crime under the influence? Because they might become addicted and need medical or psychiatric help to quit but are instead thrown away by society?
Seems like we're punishing people for what crimes they might commit all the time. Somehow people decided that some plurality knows whats best or "moral", and that all should be punished to protect against the potential actions of the few.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Since they're volunteers, it's ok that they're killed?
Someone mod this guy insightful.
I think you just summed up essentially how knowledge is a weapon. A weapon of self defense against fed and media bullspit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It is child porn if you have pictures of yourself being nude as a kid?
That's one fucked up law.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This isn't about arresting anyone. It's about due process, and the lack therof. If it's ok to ignore very fundamental rights in one case, it won't be as bad in the next, and so on, until it is the norm to ignore your rights because hey, it's already been done so many times.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And if that doesn't do it, they will grab what they without a warrant, declare the whole thing to be "a matter of national security", "containing details of operations, sources and methods' or, as a last resort, "obtained by stupid motherfucking cops who 'were acting in good faith', so you, Inquiring Citizen, can go fuck yourself with an anvil." And that's that.
Never forget that the policy on FOIA requests of the much-maligned Janet Reno DoJ was, "Absent a national security issue, disclose."
The first act of the colon-sucking John Ashcroft was to invert that policy to, "Absent a court order, withhold".
Yes, this is the same worthy who lost his Senate seat to a dead man. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/senate.missouri/ and, as AG, pissed away $8000 on curtains to obscure the right (and righteous) tit of the "Spirit of Justice" statue, so the TV cameras were left with nothing but his nauseating gob when he gave speeches http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1788845.stm. On previous occasions, the drapes had been rented at $2000 a pop when formal events were held in the space. Ecconomy is where you find it.
Then he went on to protect us by helping draft the Useless Parrot Act.
Pro-lifers will bomb abortion clinics. And I read a story on the AP feed (I work for a newspaper) about how two guys arguing over the Bible got in a fist-fight, and the one beat the other to death.
Peace protesters can in fact get violent.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Beware the tyranny of the masses.
http://tinyurl.com/et5tf
it is hard to downright impossible to prove someone's innocence. just like it is hard to prove the non-existence of an entity like the FSM.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
which should be linked in the summary, or made a bit more promeminent than a simple +5 informative. Compare to the other 10 or 20 +4/+5 jumping the gun and purporting the prosecutor made undue pressure, slippery slope, nazi comparison, bastard brazilian judge pressuring poor google without warrant and so on.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1) make up a server in a country with very very lax laws (if you don't find one, just pay a poor third world country)
2) advertise that you can do all illegal stuff you want there, because by your OWn reasonment, an US citizen saving its illegal data in the other country server, the US justice departement would have to subponea the other country server. Subponea which can be ignored because the other country law say those data are legal
3) child porn, top secret docs, credit card lists, and whatever can be illegal in your country as data get stored there.
4) profit. Lot's of.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think your confusing his point with your own. In order for your murderers example to work, you need a population that both knows they hate murderers and doesn't know where something is an abuse or not connected with capturing murderers.
That is an assumption you have made because it proves your point about a slippery slope. However, nothing you said indicates that everyone would be fine going past a certain step in the pursuit of murderers. I read along and thought that is acceptable, this is ok. Wait a minute, I won't accept that. It stopped being acceptable for me when you got to this stepPolice did one more power grab, and now obtain personal data about everybody - innocent or guilty- to catch murderers. People are ok because they hate murderers. Yet you somehow assume that this would be fine and take it another step further. There is nothing pointing to anyone looking logically at the situation and not being able to see the disconnect between catching murderers and gathering information on everyone simply because they hate murderers.
So there is his point. In order for the slippery slope to play out, you are not only assuming that whoever in charge is attempting to take the ride all the way down hill, but that the people are gullible enough to be a passenger on the trip. You have to consider that some people will object, the further down the slope we go, the more will object, the more that objects, the less likely they are to go the rest of the way down. When X+1 equal Y instead of Y-1, the slope will likely disappear as that would be as far as it can go. Even if the map shows it going a long ways further. Now let Y equal the point that everyone objects to the way the driver is driving us down the slope.
Don't forget the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
Also the Sedition Act of 1918
Finally, the subsequent Palmer Raids that followed the later's passage.
The rights of suspects have always been trampled on in pursuit of justice. Try standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in your hand and tell the cops to respect your privacy.
I don't know what all the hubub is about. They observed these people participating in talks of pedophilia and other actions that happen to of been illegal in that area. This is no different then you standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand. You are a suspect of a crime and they can investigate that crime.
What due process is missing here? The Brazilian senate requested the information, the justice department and prosecution's office was working with them, and Google was facing Jail time for not complying with their official requests. As far as Brazil is concerned, Due process has been more then meet.
Righhhhttttt....
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1997083
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0213/p03s03-usju.html
What are you saying, that they shouldn't hand over information about anyone at all? I'm pretty sure it's required by Brazilian law.
What is going on when someone could plant a couple of photos on your computer and you can go to jail? It's insanity.
Yes, the photos are unpleasant, but they are just photos. Maybe you can argue that someone was hurt making the photo, but then why isn't it illegal to have a decapitation video on your computer? Go after the producers and sellers, not the poor sod at the end of the line who may not even know of the picture.It's an example of it being illegal to speak freely about any government visits without being prosecuted. It's only not an example of actual prosecution because people have been afraid to break that law. So it's pretty much the same thing.
Wrong.
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." - Mike Godwin
I see nothing there about any forfeiture of the argument.
YOU JUST LOST THE GAME
FC Closer
Valid comparison. Godwin's Law does not establish whether the argument is lost or not.
YOU JUST LOST THE GAME
FC Closer
"Google released a statement yesterday saying it was complying with the Brazilian court orders following a ruling Thursday by a Brazilian judge that threatened Google with a fine of $23,000 a day for noncompliance." from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090100608.html They had a court order, it was fine. No need to get all pissy about it.
While I can agree that there is a certain degree of fear mongering, you also know that you could just as easily replace that last sentence you wrote as:
"If you're not exercising your Constitutional right to dissent against your government, you wouldn't need worry about being called a terrorist".
--- I'm going sane in a crazy world.
I simplified it into 3 larger steps. It's happening right now and I don't see people rioting in the streets. It's just not that big of an erosion of rights. Not yet.
Murderers is an analogy. Maybe people don't have murderers that much. But they sure hate pedophiles. Heck- read every other comment in this article: FBI Renews Push for ISP Data Retention Laws, it's always something along the lines of - "..as long as they catch those evil children molesters.."
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
in orders of magnitude greater than paedophilia / kiddie porn.
Why dont they tackle that crime first?
Also, what is the _factual_ correlation between hardened organised criminals and the suspected or suspected-and-arrested paedophiles?
What portion of society's crime is paedophilia?
Would any "law enforcement official" take the time to answer these questions?
I don't think so.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Of course I understand that, and I understand that that's the point to the original parent was trying to make (not sure why my opinion deserves a Troll and Flamebait moderation but anyway), the point is this was about turning data over on suspected criminals. If you have a problem with that, it's the fault of the law and the lawmakers, not of the people who comply with it.
And apparently expressing disbelief in the face of prevailing conspiracy theories based on ignorance also justifies a negative moderation. Woo-hoo.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
The law also covers cartoons. It doesn't matter if any real children are involved or not.
Explain to me how this is not thought-crime??
And as a poster above points out, once it's acceptable (or worse, desireable) to prosecute one type of thought-crime -- ANY concept someone disapproves of can become thought-crime, despite NO actual harm being done to any person or property.
Remember that in some countries, merely *discussing* or *reading about* foreign forms of government is a capital offense.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
And since when does a budding tyrant want you to have the knowledge to prevent his rise to power?
Tyranny isn't just lining dissidents up against the wall and shooting them, ya know.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Certain it is. Wanting to see kiddie porn is a crime. Wanting to kill the President of the U.S. is a crime. Don't think so? trot down to your local cop shop and express a desire to see their confiscated kiddie porn. Walk past the White House and yell "I'm gonna kill Bush". See what happens. Doesn't matter if you'd ever ACTUALLY do it; you need only CLAIM that you want to do it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Ah...but what a singer.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yet it still fails...
It goes from crime, crime, crime, everyone.
Looks like they didn't fail, if you didn't catch that "file-sharing" isn't a crime.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
To put it in perspective, the groups that do that have as much to do with the "Mormon" church as Muslim fundamentalists have to do with real Muslims.
Problem is who defines which one is real and which not?
The majority?
Depends on the file, dumbass. Or, do you consider violating someone's rights not a crime, even when there is a law against violating those rights?
Now, please, STFU.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
You can't take the sky from me...