Slashdot Mirror
Child Porn Arrest For Cameron Aide Who Helped Plan UK Net Filters
An anonymous reader writes "A senior aide to David Cameron resigned from Downing Street last month the day before being arrested on allegations relating to child abuse images. Patrick Rock, who was involved in drawing up the government's policy for the large internet firms on online pornography filters, resigned after No 10 was alerted to the allegations. Rock was arrested at his west London flat the next morning. Officers from the National Crime Agency subsequently examined computers and offices used in Downing Street by Rock, the deputy director of No 10's policy unit, according to the Daily Mail, which disclosed news of his arrest."
How is the possession or viewing of child porn a crime at all? I dare someone to prove the harm in possessing/viewing cold porn
he was just testing the filters!
Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it? If the law requires child porn blocking, then someone has to be trawling the internet actively looking for child porn in order to know what to block. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.
This guy was controlling the internet for an entire country, and when I added Porn Expert to *my* resume, I didn't even get a call back.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
HA-ha
It's a common pattern. Someone has a dark secret and they end up persecuting those who have the same impulses. They simultaneously engage in behavior they see as evil while doing the same thing themselves. It's why we continuously hear about virulent ant-gay politicians and religious leaders who have a secret gay life. Just look for the people who are screaming loudly about a specific sin, and there you will find a greater then average concentration of sinners.
Why is Snark Required?
I have a new proposal.
Any politican, politicians aide, or other government employee, who puts forth legislation suggesting the censorship of any aspect of the Internet, is required to have all of their usable technology, both public and private, scanned for content currently illegal under the law. It seems as if those who are the 'watchers and gatekeepers' to this sort of censorship, are often the worse offenders.
Never happen, but it's pleasant to think about.
Is this, like, "You need a thief to catch a thief"?
This is messed up.
A perfect child-porn filter that only filters child porn would be wonderful, but that is fairy magic.
In reality we cannot trust those who wish to filter our internet, and this is why.
There is no substitute for proper discipline and compassion in upbringing.
Being forced to learn to fight crudely at school to protect myself (and fight my own battles) has caused me crippling psychiatric issues in adulthood.
Being forced to porn act to make daddy money (this did NOT happen to me) is an even worse evil.
Children need to grow, learn and play, and be free from influences such as sexuality and violence, but must be taught proper discipline about both so that as they reach maturity these things are no longer a fascination and do not cause the grown up child to turn to unhealthy sex and violence as a crutch. Society needs fixing.
John_Chalisque
Yeah, right...
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
"but I know it when I see it," says the US Supreme Court. Rock is obviously a diligent researcher...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Too much 'thinking of the kids'
remember, order is important.
Well, if you are a child-porn-using government official and your boss asks you to work on anti-internet-porn rules, are you going to tell your boss "Sir, I know this is important, but I'm really not the best person to work on this project. May I recommend [co-worker's name], I think he would be good for this assignment"?
If your boss insisted that you do it, would you resign rather than work on a task in which you clearly have such a conflict of interest which would be useless to disclose (i.e. if you disclosed it, you would be fired anyways)?
I would ask if you would wake up and smell the coffee and quit using child porn, but for the sake of argument let's assume the answer to that is "no."
What goes around comes around. No, wait...
I mean: He got his comeuppance.... NO!
Er, that is to say: For every action there is an equal and opposite erection... ah fuck it.
Wanna find some perverts? Just look at those taling about morality 24/7.
No as I do.
How do we know GCHQ didn't plan that shit on this machine?
I'm not trying to defend the guy, 'cause hey, he's a politician.
But considering the news about GCHQ's dirty operations program, it wouldn't fucking surprise me.
so I defy you to find the victim in that.
Well that all depends on your model of human nature. If you believe in a hydraulic model of emotions (and emotions motivate behaviour), then synthetic pictures are *good* in that they can reduce the chance of a real living breathing victim. On the other hand, if you believe that indulging in behaviour promotes similar behaviour, or (orthogonality) if you believe that societal structure prevents crime, then synthetic pictures are *bad* because they would increase the likelihood of a real living breathing victim.
The hydraulic model of emotions has not credibility, and clinical psychologists *and* buddhists are likely to tell you that enacting an emotional state will increase the likelihood and intensity of similar future states. (The Dalai Lama says "like begets like" or something like that. Neurologists may make an argument based on the dark side of brain plasticity.)
Now, I don't believe any of that. (For real, my model of human nature is actually quite different to anything listed above.) But the point is that the world is more complex than: "I defy you to find the victim in that".
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
please STOP thinking of the CHILDREN, you dirty pedos.
What are the odds of this being a frame-up? Motivated by any number of reasons involving political competition, dislike of the law/system, personal vendetta?
How about any legitimate claims of acquisition resulting from research on how easy/hard it is to find child porn?
Of all the people who could possibly make either claim, this guy seems like he is in the position to do so.
Although it also seems to fit that someone who was secretly into child porn might also be want to be in a position where they might believe they are above suspicion or close to the source.
Who Watches the Watchers ('batin)? Or does that require another filter?
*sirens wailing*
Here come the thought police! Hide your copies of Lolita.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/esp_icke108.htm
facts
captcha: incest (disgusting slashdot..)
First, sort of reverse projection - I suspect some of the people who are REALLY obsessed with the subject have a not-so deeply buried yen for the forbidden fruit, and sally forth to find and punish the bad people who are likewise obsessed. Denial and reverse projection.
Who the hell else has opportunity to collect but the people who search for people with such images? Where else you gonna get it? Bust a collector, you get the collection.
Since such stuff is hard to find, and harder still to put up on the web, the usual suspects putting the stuff out there... are the cops. Honey pots and the like. And you will find cops who have images and *are immune from suspicion* because of their position. A number of them have to be such. Non-zero number.
If you want to find a witch, look among the witch hunters. That's where the smart witches hide.
Final thought: how damned easy it must be to set someone up. A script to download from a honey pot, or just secret sneak-and-peek to place files on a hard drive. Who would ever believe that the accused pedophile was framed?
Everyone knows the stuff is everywhere.
How do we know this?
They tell us it is.
If no one is looking for the stuff, because laws, how do we know the stuff is everywhere? No one can research it. I certainly don't.
Is it possible it is now so rare that it exists at all because cops and task forces are posting it?
Is it possible this "war" is as real as the one on The Terror? The war is the war because war?
Are we being lied to on a drug-war scale?
Are people being set up?
Check these out.
(.)(.)
These are the titties of a 17 year old girl. If you downloaded this post you are a pedophile. The average pedophile isn't Gary Sandusky. The average pedo is a drunk guy peeing on the side of the street who is withnessed by a 17 year old girl. The average pedo is a mother who is breast feeding her child. The average pedo is a dude who is 18 and haves sex with a 17 year old. The mother who takes pictures of her naked kids because she mistakenly believes it is cute is a pedo. Pedophilia is the Mc Carthysim (sp) of the early 21st century. The harder we look the more pedophiles we find.
Would be nice is NSA and GCHQ did indeed do something right and burned the bastard Cameron and all of his loony tunes.
Then, do the "nasty" to Obama, for an 'October Surprise.'
Obama is very likely the most impotent president since William Henry Harrison!
Ha ha
Not to mention that in many child porn images where real children are present there is no actual abuse taking place. In many of these images the children are not even entirely naked. How can it be child pornography if the image itself is not pornographic? The fact that an adult looking at an image sexualises the content of the image does not make the image itself pornography. In that case pictures of shoes are pornography since there are people with shoe and foot fetishes. It may be a source of arousal to them, but it's just a picture of a shoe to the rest of us. It's this kind of thinking that is making the iconic child in the bathtub image that every parent likes to take, illegal.