German Member of Parliament Joins Pirate Party

Political Observer writes "Jörg Tauss, a member of the German Parliament (Bundestag), left the Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is part of the coalition government, and announced that he is joining the German Pirate Party (Google translation; original German article). Tauss resigned from the SPD after all but four of the party's members voted for a new censorship law, which passed the parliament on Thursday. The law, which aims at reducing child pornography, introduces an infrastructure for DNS-based content blocking and is the subject of major criticism from Internet users. In March 2009 Tauss became the subject of investigations by the German police for possession of child pornographic material. He said he had this material only for research as part of his role as a member of parliament. Investigations are still continuing."

Comments

Well done

[Anonymous Coward]

If this kind of thing happens more often, the general public might actually get to hear about it.

Whenever I ask them, most of the people I know have heard about the Pirate Bay guys being found guilty and
very little else. Most news stories we get here (in the UK) are very biased whenever these kinds of stories even appear.
ID Cards are barely mentioned, censorship & privacy stories are generally ignored unless its got the usual terrorists/paedophile
angle.

No one here's buying it.

[ReallyEvilCanine]

"I have been concerned with the scene for years."

You don't need to DL a bunch of kiddie pr0n to study it nor do you do it without informing any police organisation before doing so, if only to prevent any mistaken ideas, much less prevent duplication of work and chasing down useless paths.

Tauss has very good representation who know how to take advantage of a few laws here in Germany which more or less allow public figures to buy their way out of a courtroom.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[Darkness404]

The problem with CP is that its impossible to actually "see" whats wrong with it without running afoul of laws. When information itself is banned, its then becomes impossible to get the information needed to rule on such things. For example, its like someone making laws that affect, say the liquor industry, however this person has never drank any alcohol, doesn't know anyone who drinks alcohol, and hasn't read any studies about alcohol. However when it comes to making informed decisions about CP its impossible to do so without breaking any of the laws because viewing it is so prohibited. So not only can you not drink the alcohol, but you can't really read about it, there are no formal studies done on it, so all you hear are reactionary stories of "so and so was drinking and they hit a tree and died!" rather than any hard information.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Oh well... Sometimes I am inclined to think we should not direct all that blind hate against people in posession of kiddie porn. Why? Not because I like such people or the stuff they enjoy, but because this witch hunt against anything having to do with kiddie porn scares me rather a lot. It's like the global warming bandwagon... the problem might be real, but the reason everybody jumps on is to push their own agenda. Over here, the police recently investigated some (extremish) right-wing politician, and announced for some reason that they found kiddie porn on his computer. It was odd that they announced it since it was not the object of their investigation, and as it turned out it was something like 2 images in a sizable pr0n-pile of otherwise vanilla erotica. But... if they wanted to eliminate this guy's political career, the move suddenly makes sense, since everyone branded as a child pornographer, however tenuously, is basically branded an outcast for life in today's society.

And what has been predicted is now becoming reality, in Germany at least: child pornography is being used as the excuse to institute state censorship on the Internet. It's already been mentioned as a reason why citizens shouldn't be allowed cryptography or anynomity on the Net. They might take away those liberties to prevent kiddie porn with everyone cheering them on, since in the fight for that cause, anything goes at the moment. But it will not stop there.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[Darkness404]

...And if your job is to revise these laws of course no one would ever go see what is out there to see if its really that bad. No not anyone. Just like we want the people who make our drug laws to have never taken any drugs, never looked at any drugs, never talked to people who have taken drugs, heck while we're at it we don't want them to even look at research about drugs either. Or how about we have people making computer laws who have never even used a computer for more than 2 minutes! That works out really well for everyone, right? The thing is, if you are going to make laws about something, you have to at least know what it is you are dealing with, the problem is we have essentially banned all information about CP other than "its bad", if you are in charge of figuring out just how bad it is, I'd say that you would have to look at it to at the very least know what you were dealing with.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

...And if your job is to revise these laws of course no one would ever go see what is out there to see if its really that bad. No not anyone.

You don't seem to get it. The truth doesn't matter when it comes to the child porn hunts. It is most definitely a case of "guilty until proven innocent" -- and even once you produce that evidence of innocence, you're still screwed for life.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[Darkness404]

You can study the effects of victimization on children without personally witnessing the act, just like we do with any other crime.

Right. And this has to do with child porn possession how? Especially when child porn can be legally defined as not even real children (!) just things drawn to seem underage. By that arguement every time someone views "adult" porn they are raping a porn actress (or actor). We know that not to be true. CP possession is effectively a victimless crime. Please tell me who gets harmed whenever someone downloads something legally defined as CP over the internet for no fee. Really, does someone get raped again for every time someone views it? If I watch an execution does that mean the person gets killed every time you watch it? By all means, prosecute and criminalize the production and possibly even the buying of it for profit, but simple possession of images that may or may not even be a real child being harmed in any way, should not be a crime especially when not explicitly asked for (for example someone being charged when they downloaded a huge zip file of porn with 1 or 2 underage people).

And please, tell me how you get across the problem of hearsay when you can't actually look at the pictures? Do you agree with the total prohabition of alcohol just because someone told you that alcohol may have had some influence in someone wrecking a car? But no way that you would ever drink alcohol nor read a study on it. And really, the logic of "they are reading CP that means that automatically makes them a predator" makes as much sense as someone who reads erotic fiction as going to carry out those acts.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[mellon]

Another argument on the child porn thing is to ask the question, what percentage of all child abuse has to do with child porn? Last time I checked into it, the most generous number I could come up with was a tenth of a percent. A hundred million children in the world live on the streets. Child prostitution is common in developing countries. Child labor exploitation is common. Trafficking in enslaved children is common.

If what is being done to cure child porn is one tenth of one percent of all the money and effort and compromise being put into solving the other 99.9% of suffering experienced by children, then we could say that what is being done is rational. So check it out. Is that the case? No, not even remotely. Much *more* money is being spent combating child porn than any of the other ills that befall children in the world.

So then it's clear that the new and draconian crackdown on child porn actually has nothing to do with protecting children.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[CompassIIDX]

No, the child isn't being directly harmed by someone viewing their exploitation, however their honor and dignity are chipped away at with each viewing. Just because the video was already made -- the brunt of the damage has been done -- doesn't give us all the right to see it guilt-free. And completely decriminalizing possession would send an implicit message that the depictions themselves are acceptable.

That said, I certainly agree punishments shouldn't be anywhere near what they are today for mere possession, especially since regardless of conviction the person's life is oft-times destroyed upon mere accusation. (And as for your comparison up there, I actually think possessing videos depicting real murder should carry a similar punishment.)

Of course, as others have mentioned rational thought frequently doesn't enter the picture at all when this subject is on the table, so I see things getting worse, not better. The public hysteria has really reached a fever pitch with stuff like drawings being deemed child porn, or kids taking cell phone pics of THEMSELVES getting charged. It's classic witch hunt mentality, where you literally can't say ANYTHING against someone once they've played the pedophile card without eyes narrowing and the accusations swinging your way. "Oh, you're sticking up for the CHILD MOLESTERS, are you?! Methinks you may be one of them!" ::torches raise:: "GET HIM!"

And society's hypocrisy makes the whole thing even more ludicrous -- in the US anyway -- where the age of consent is 18 (if you're EVER attracted to anything below you're automatically pure evil -- no ifs, ands, or buts), and yet models regularly start their careers at 13/14, and marketing and media bombards us with idealized images of youth around the clock.

Re:No one here's buying it.

[_Sprocket_]

I've found a lot of child porn at www.disney.com. Tons of it. Don't bother going to look. You don't have to see it to know what's wrong with it. We know all about victimization of children. That should be enough. That, and the fact that I've told you that it's child porn. That should be enough for anyone. Or, at least, you.

The rest of us would be less inclined to take random stranger's opinions at face value, thank you.

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[Draek]

You've never downloaded 'questionable' material just to see what was the problem with it? BDSM, bukkake, bestiality, snuff films, coprophagia and yes, even child porn have passed through my hard-drives, even though I find all of them disgusting.

I'd post anonymously but frankly, I don't give a fsck, it's been years since I've had any of that stuff and if some cop decided to tap my internet connection they'd only see download of various patches and traffic from the odd online game. Perhaps he's lying, perhaps he's not, but his statement doesn't sound too far-fetched so I'm willing to give him the benefit of doubt.

Why chase pedofiles and not child molesters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I wouldn't say that. Have you ever googled, etc. for child porn just to see how easily you can actually find it in the Internet? I am turned on by older women than I am but I have still done that. It wouldn't even be very far fetched claim to say that you could save some of the stuff as example even if you aren't turned on by it. Unless we know exact details of the material on his computer, how it got there and most importantly, if anyone profited from that and if anyone got hurt... We know nothing.

Besides, I always wonder... Why do people act as if pedophiles were horrible people. It is sexual preference that they might not be able to change themselves. What matters is if they let anyone get hurt because of that. Child molesters should be hunted down, as should people who acquire child porn in a way that it causes more injuries to children (IE: Buys it and people who produce it will gain more motivation to produce more). But people who just download it from peer to peer networks without anyone profitting or getting hurt more because of that download? Hell, it might even prevent some child abusement cases.

And yeah.. If you really think that public figure could tell police "I'll download some child porn but I'll just tell you beforehand" without massive scandals...

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[LainTouko]

Quite frankly, unless he's actually paying for it, or otherwise actually contributing to child abuse, I really don't care. Simple possession, if not a completely victimless crime, is certainly very close to being one.

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[phorm]

Whatever his reasons, I'm not sure that it helps to have somebody being investigated for such material as a supporter of change. If he gets convicted then it becomes a case of "see, only pedophiles and perverts would oppose this law!"

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[gparent]

Not to mention the fact that it's nearly impossible to browse certain high-visibility sites (4chan) without some dumb-witted idiot posting a 8 year old child getting molested.

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[dissy]

so if i'm a scientist, and i'm doing pharmaceutical research, can i use that as my excuse for a small mountain of cocaine on my coffee table?

What it means is, if cocaine is "bad" but the law outlaws all white powders, then yes having a non-cocaine white powder which is illegal as it violates the cocaine law, would be perfectly fine. (Yes, for you too!)
Throwing everyone in jail who has white powder, under cocaine laws, is BAD (and exactly what happens)

Using the USA as an example, as I don't know the legal age over there, here it is 18 years old. Adjust the numbers accordingly for your country...

If I have pictures of a 17 year 11 month 28 day old girl, and/or next to it a 23 year old girl who looks 17, both of which are illegal under the law and will get me sent to prison as a child porn distributer, that should be fine. (Just like in your example)

I'm not saying anything about what he does or does not have. I don't know. I wasn't there.
But when the government claims he had child porn, I have proof that in 99.(high number) percent of the time it is NOT child porn and just a smear campaign, I will firmly side with the idea that "The government just told a horrible life ruining lie" instead of think they have anything to do with child porn. I have decades and tens of thousands of court cases to back up my default assumption, out of 4-5 that turned out to be real child porn possessors of prepubescent children.

(This also might be a USA thing too) Just as when a police officer claims they tasered that 7 year old boy because it was their "last option", i instantly do not believe them. Under such rare cases would that be the case, that I now dismiss all of them as bullshit, even on that one in a hundred years time it WAS the last option.
Here, tasering for no cause happens so many times a day, that there is no possible way for a sane rational human being to believe it.

As much as I hate people that abuse children, at that ratio, everyone ever arrested for it needs released.
That will not do, as real pedophiles need to be in jail. Thus, to keep tens of thousands of innocent people out of jail, AND to keep real pedophiles in jail, the only solution is to fix the broken laws. THAT is what needs done.

The odds are in favor of this man doing nothing wrong, and the government using their ole staple lie to ruin the life of someone they don't like. The odds they actually managed to catch a real pedophile are too low.

Unlike you, I will wait for proof to be found.

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[Ethanol-fueled]

Right. I don't look at the stuff either, but most people assume that people who do view it are ruthless predators - who are one step away from snatching a kid from the park - without taking into account that it's possible that some people child porn imagining themselves to be the kid and not the adult.

MILF and schoolteacher fantasies anyone? Schoolgirl fantasies? Maybe schoolgirl costumes should be banned because every guy who buys one for his wife or halloween date is a sadistic pedophile.

While we're at it, let's assume that every chick who wears a schoolgirl outfit, or every horny boy who imagines banging his hawt teacher are not indulging fantasies known to be normal since antiquity. Let's assume that they are disturbed and confused and should seek counseling along with heavy doses of behavior modification and the stigma associated with victimhood! [/sarcasm]

As an aside, I find it disturbing that many folks are afraid to post the words "child pornography" on slashdot without obfuscating it to CP or ch*ld pr0n even while anonymous.

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[Jurily]

Quite frankly, unless he's actually paying for it, or otherwise actually contributing to child abuse, I really don't care. Simple possession, if not a completely victimless crime, is certainly very close to being one.

Also, what exactly does "child pornography" mean? Does a 17 year old girl qualify? How about a 14 year old boy? I wish I made porn when I was 14...

CP should be freely available to save the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Child molesters should be hunted down, as should people who acquire child porn in a way that it causes more injuries to children (IE: Buys it and people who produce it will gain more motivation to produce more). But people who just download it from peer to peer networks without anyone profitting or getting hurt more because of that download? Hell, it might even prevent some child abusement cases.

Exactly! If you believe RIAA's theory, then by downloading CP for free you are discouraging the production of CP!

Think of the number of children that can be saved if everyone spreads CP everywhere so no one will pay for it! Wouldn't that cause billions of damages to CP producers? To save children from abuse, the law should mandate the spread of CP instead of making it illegal!

By making CP illegal and thus creating a monopoly for illegal CP producers, the law could be hurting more children than it presumably saves.

Re:UPDATE!

[Kjella]

I think it's horrible news and don't understand why they'd want to accept. One of the biggest issues the pirate party has had to fight is "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear". In Sweden they've spent lots and lots of time that we want privacy by closing the curtains, locking the toilet, writing letters not postcards to convince people this is perfectly normal and mass surveillance is unacceptable. For that it's crucial to come across as being a normal person who values their privacy, not a criminal looking to get away with it. How's this guy going to do that with any sort of credibility while he's being charged with kiddie porn? I'm sorry, but I think this will only hurt the pirate party's reputation around the world, even though they formally have no relation to swedish pirate party.

Re:This is NOT good news

[Vexorian]

It is not the piracy party for heavens sake... It is the "Pirate party" and one of their various objectives happens to be the protection of the civil liberties. I don't think at all that a guy that fights against the implementation of state censorship of the internet with the intention to stop what's basically a thoughtcrimes all under the anthem of 'saving the children', even though all the money, resources and freedom spent on battling child porn is not justified when you find out that actual child prostitution is a much , much worse problem that for some reason gets almost no attention or resources, perhaps because battling it would actually mean messing with mafias and organized crime without giving the governments a chance to remove internet censorship...

Though to be fair, perhaps states just want to avoid to get themselves into situations like Iran's government's in which forbidding internation coverage does not help you in your efforts to prevent the world from knowing what's going on all thanks to that evil, open, decentralized beast the internet is.

Re:kiddie porn "research"

[Neoprofin]

In other words his involvement was, from what I gather, potentially: possession, distribution, production, and from the sound of it trading this produced content with others.

Can you honestly not tell why someone might refer to downloading child pornography from where ever, as a completely one sided exchange, as in no way furthering the victimization of youth, given that the images already exist and no incentive is being provided for the production of more? In contrast I think it's very easy to say exactly where the victimization in your example is, and the fact that he would (my gathering) be involved in bartering of the fruits of the victimization rather than straight purchasing is irrelevant to the argument and provides a very clear incentive for continued violence.

In other words, your friend doesn't fit the definition. Leave him out of it.

Re:UPDATE!

[Neoprofin]

Unless he's not guilty.

People like to skip that thing in these sorts of cases.