Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tip Leads To Child Porn Arrest In Pennsylvania
Shades of the recent arrest based on child porn images flagged by Google in an email, mrspoonsi writes A tip-off from Microsoft has led to the arrest of a man in Pennsylvania who has been charged with receiving and sharing child abuse images. It flagged the matter after discovering that an image involving a young girl had been allegedly saved to the man's OneDrive cloud storage account. According to court documents, the man was subsequently detected trying to send two illegal pictures via one of Microsoft's live.com email accounts. Police arrested him on 31 July.
Dropbox? Apple iCloud?
It's For The Children!
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
The demo 1x1 pixel has the color 0xF0B8A0 and contains child pr0n down-sampled.
What, you thought numbers being illegal was nonsense too?
Sweet Jesus, if you're going to send things in the clear, you have no idea who might be able to lay eyes on it. This goes for storing things locally -- people have been busted for stored files when they take a machine in for repair as well.
When in doubt, encrypt. When not in doubt, get in doubt.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Seriously, I must not be normal. This is clearly "for the children", there's really nothing morally disputable about this particular case. So, why can't I see it as progress? Why am I worried that it was automatically spotted?
I need to get my s... straight. Think of the children. Think of the children. The system is good for me. The good guys have nothing to worry about.
Why aren't these guys encrypting their stuff? I would imagine extra care are to be taken if they think what they are doing can be morally objectionable... And then it hit me that the NSA works like that too. Always blow on the morally objectionable stuff.
I don't understand the surprise people are experiencing from the revelation that Google and Microsoft scans the stuff you upload to their cloud storage systems.
You are literally giving them a copy of your files, and generally speaking, you also agreed to allow them to allow them to scan your stuff. Google Drive's terms of service explicitly states that your stuff will be scanned:
"Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored. "
Why would anyone reasonably think that their stuff is somehow private when it's in the cloud?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
What other illegal activity will they be watching for?
This is the sound of the panoptic, dystopian police state coming. Good luck everyone!
We all know what kind files they will scan for next. Because MPAA/RIAA are way more important than children!
In order to successfully perform these matches, Microsoft likely has one of the world's largest collection of child porn.
My parents of pictures of me that would probably have sent to jail if they took them today
fuuuuuuck, mine were god damned MOVIES!
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
If only I had a large enough collection of tinfoil hats to sell to all the posters freaking out over this.
This cloud crap is just trash. At least use encryption (not theirs) or something.
Plus, they caught someone with images that shouldn't be illegal to have to begin with. When is an actual rapist going to be arrested?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This is what studying ethics/morality feels like. And this isn't exactly progress, unless you count "progressing to a police state". Many things in life are conflicts of various field of interest, and it is up to the philosophers/activists/lawyers/judges/lobbyists/legislature to figure them out.
This would be like a self-storage site that had a drug sniffing dog.
You people will get your internet privacy as soon as that last pedophile racist bomb-plotting terrorist is rotting in prison.
Possessing images that authorities subjectively deem "disgusting" is illegal there? The US has "I know it when I see it." The fact that such censorship (based on opinions about subjective matters, no less) is allowed in any 'free' countries shows that free countries don't truly exist.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Microsoft (or Google) getting a hit on a flagged image (or on image processing) means that they turn over the results of that hit to LEO.
If LEO works to arrest you based on that information, then you're subject to the justice system like any other suspected criminal.
You can argue that the justice system might have an axe to grind against pedo's, and you're probably right, but they're still afforded due process.
Witch hunts describe looking for things that aren't there - you know, witches. Sick fucks with pictures of exploited children are very, very real.
So I take it you will allow me to move in to your home and watch your every intimate movement? All in the name of making sure you aren't distributing child porn, of course.
No, and that is a ludicrous analogy.
It's more, I should not go into someone else's home, leave my stuff there, and when a legally-dubious thing happens to be in my stuff in their house, I should not expect them to simply let it go (considering that a lot of legally-dubious things have clauses about "conspiracy" and "required to report").
Hey, pedophiles have serious mental issues and deserve a special place in prison .
A pedophile is nothing more than a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Not all pedophiles rape or even look at child porn, and not all child rapists are even necessarily pedophiles.
Also, why do they need a special place in prison? Why not 'normal' rapists, or murderers? Do they also get special places in prison? If not, then why single out this group? Because mentions of 'the children' cause your irrational brain to malfunction?
that you report the existence of any of this kind of stuff because of the harm that is caused to the children.
Voodoo is not real. Voodoo does not exist. Images will not harm people like voodoo dolls. Any 'harm' is caused by their own reaction, assuming that they even see it. But if the mere thought that an image of themselves could be out there is enough to make themselves emotionally unstable, then there is nothing that can be done for them, because censorship is - in practice - futile.
So in this case, it IS for the children and it's hard to argue with the logic.
No, it's easy, and that's because there is no logic; just a strong desire for more and more government control over what information is accessible to people.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
One of these days a hash collision will happen on an innocuous file and the jackboots will ruin someone's life over it.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Here's a novel idea...let's get the downloaders the mental help that they obviously need and save the torches and pitchforks for the ones that are taking the photos/videos.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Your comparison is perfect, assuming you want people searching through your stuff for legally dubious things. The big issue is that this searching could be expanded to catch other, less harmful files. What if they were searching for generic pornography, leaked government documents, or "backups" of programs/media? Surely that isn't something you'd want.
There is a reason that the red scare is described as a witch hunt, so saying that the term "witch hunt" can only be used for imaginary things is simply false.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The harm is in the production of the images in the first place, not in the viewing of them. The viewing supports the production. Or the production supports the viewing. I am not sure, given that I do not operate in those circles. From what I have read about it, the consensus seems to be that most kiddie porn is produced by family members abusing their younger relatives.
It can probably be argued that the people making the images would continue to make them even if they did not have an audience to share them with. Even so, there is still some social value in discouraging people from consuming the images. If people are interested in the images, that is a form of social acceptance for those who make the images.
It is bad enough that people have these demons that they struggle with. It is terrible that they abuse those who are too young to protect themselves and in most cases, do not even realize how wrong the activities are. The last thing that we need as a society is to encourage others to consume the evidence of that abuse.
...was actually much more interesting to read than the actual news, where to start...lets see now:
- We have a member here who thinks Pedophilia is a disease and think Pedophilia equals abusing children:
He/she is one of the numerous clueless people out there who have NO idea if this is actually a disease or just like Homosexuality. Arguing with such a person is completely futile, but they'll always be in numbers. It's kind of voting for stupid. (Yes, that was a H2G2 reference).
- We also have several members here who thinks Pedophiles should be arrested and behind bars just for being Pedophiles, never mind if they committed any crimes.
- We've got the usual anonymous coward zealots that thinks that if you don't have anything to hide, there is nothing to worry about.
Wanna bet who's next on tomorrows "sick" list? It can't possibly be you, can it?
- We've got the next predictable bunch who immediately attacks someone who defends the freedom of the individual, and calls them Pedophiles, because they can't POSSIBLY be normal or straight if they defend Pedophiles, now can they?
(Who exactly defended who now?) Never mind the actual facts, just as long as you get YOUR hidden agenda across.
- And then we have those who thinks that images of kids being exploited are okay, just as long as you bust the purps behind the images, and not the users.
(And who are the users now again? Sick Pedophiles, or nasty voyeuristic perverts that wants to get a kick out of something unthinkable and illegal?) And where do we draw the line? Naked kids? Kids posing sexually, and how do you define that?), family photos available to all? Imagine the number of youtube and imageshack users you'd have to arrest or at least suspect. Who do you trust today?
I'll let you in on a little secret of mine, for years I've been working undercover together with a police agent who is a close friend of mine to uncover several secret child-abuse rings in various countries - trust me when I say...this is the WORST JOB IN THE WORLD. I got into it because some family members of mine was abused, and I thought I'd use my skills for something good. Over time I learned that albeit we DID get a lot of these rings busted, we also ruined several families lives, destroyed childhoods because the law and common sense doesn't mix at all.
Everyone sees red when it comes to Child Abuse, and rightly so - but it is important...no...VITAL for progress that we somewhat keep our heads above water here and try to think rationally. It is NOT rational to point fingers at everyone who wants anonymity as a suspect of anything, it is NOT rational to call every Pedophile a CHILD ABUSER, it is NOT rational to think that if your opinion differs from the stupid masses...that you are in LEAGUE with ANYONE who happens to NOT fit your OPINION today (eg. those who want to HELP PEDOPHILES - are NOT nessesarily Pedophiles themselves, but a lot of the angry mob especially in here seem to think so).
I get upset by this, because I think of Mr. Allan Turing, who was just recently pardoned by the British for the grave injustice brought upon him just for having a sexual preference he might not even have ANY control over (we're not talking urges and constraint here, we're talking sexual PREFERENCES).
I do NOT want a society that becomes totalitarian where every deviant of nature becomes a freak to be hung, burned and ridiculed for just being different. I see YOUR mind as a private thing, just like your diary as a private thing. What you THINK of or FANTASIZE of is YOUR BUSINESS ONLY, and NO ONE ELSE.
And there is nothing that gets me fired up more than someone using child abuse in ever shape and form, fantasy or drawn, real or not - to excuse severe abuse of human rights, to pry into our daily lives with the law in hand...and with a lot of supporters that mean well...but really have NO CLUE of the REAL danger they're actually putting themselves in by supporting this ludicrous development.
Wake up and smell the coffee, people!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
What about pictures of one's baby or young kid nude, is it illegal to send such images to the kids grandparents for example? It can be very hard to tell from just a picture whether abuse took place or not. Sometimes it's clear, and I hope the victims get all the help they need. But in other cases, would these automated systems mark the images as "child abuse" and get the parents in trouble? The topic is so heated that even slight suspicions can lead to big problems.
The harm is in the production of the images in the first place
I agree 100%.
The viewing supports the production.
People's actions are their own. If the rapists rape, then it is their fault for raping, whether or not they're doing it for a profit or because they want others to see the videos or images. Going after people who merely look at the content is blaming them for other people's actions, and I don't condone that.
But even if that were true, I'm 100% opposed to government censorship, even if it keeps people 'safe.' So no such arguments will work on me.
The last thing that we need as a society is to encourage others to consume the evidence of that abuse.
The last thing we need is censorship.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I would imagine a potential way of exploiting it would be to randomly modify one of the bits in one or more pixels of the image, and make enough copies of them so we are in the hash collision territories. Especially if you are passing these things through email as opposed to P2P, but I think it is doable in P2P as well.
If you are a rich cartel who needs such spaces, before you use the service, sneak in and get a lot of cheap drugs and powder spray them all over the places so the next time the dog went by they have to search everything. do this everyday for a few weeks and people will stop responding to these things.
I always thought of "witch hunt" not as referring to the actual pursuit of those engaged in witchcraft (which is not imaginary, btw, only the idea that it works is imaginary, IMHO), but rather as referring to the drive to utterly crucify the subject of the hunt. BURN THEM, do not treat them as a human being, subject them to cruel and unusual punishment.
YMMV.
From the article "possessing an extreme pornographic image likely to cause injury", this could apply to many BDSM images. Seems odd that...given that taking part in a Sunday sporting activity, might 'likely cause an injury', mountain biking, football, etc, I not see the police locking up these dare-devils.
I'd add the distribution folks added to someplace in between "locked away for life to be Bubba's princess" and "go see a shrink" but I'm not going to argue with your approach. In any case, this stuff needs to be dealt with in a pretty harsh way and get those who are disposed to harm children off the streets. To me that means that we need to be taking a close look at the dude (or dudete) caught downloading this stuff, because if you are getting your jollies from it, it's a short distance from looking to doing, and doing to taking pictures.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It looks like you are trying to download child abuse images. Would you like me to help direct you to a seat over there?
The viewing supports the production. Or the production supports the viewing. I am not sure,
Well, let me clear it up for you, since it's a pretty simple one-way cause and effect: Production supports viewing. Viewing, in and of itself, does exactly nothing to support anything else.
Purchasing? That could support production. Page views on a site that runs ads? That could support production. Pulling from a site that keeps a record of the number of downloads, such that the uploader gets some kind of gratification watching the counter go up? That could support production.
But viewing, in itself, does not support production.
The last thing that we need as a society is to encourage others to consume the evidence of that abuse.
Encourage them? How are we as a society encouraging the viewers? I'm pretty sure it is common knowledge that we, the vast majority of society, find this behavior repugnant. I don't think they sit in their greasy basements thinking how proud their city council would be if they only knew.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I am willing to agree that blanket censorship is a bad thing.
How can you be opposed to the censorship of child pornography? Please avoid the slippery slope argument. That one has been played out.
No, that's a different term.
And your assumption that civilization comes from allowing basest nature to happen is I think pretty much the opposite of what civilization means.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
How can you be opposed to the censorship of child pornography?
Because I am opposed to government censorship. I do not believe that censoring something merely because people don't like it, or because you think it influences others in 'bad' ways (in this case, people say it influences people to make more) is okay. It's too subjective for me. But again, I oppose all censorship.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Has censorship of child porn had any measurable effect on its production?
(honestly curious here)
Let's use an extreme example here. Someone rapes your mom and takes pictures and posts them on the internet. Would you be opposed to allowing your mother to issue a DMCA take down notice? That is censorship.
Following your logic as I think you are laying it out, you would have to be opposed to that too. After all, rape is bad and we are not necessarily condoning rape. We are simply looking at images of something that has already happened. We are not profiting from them. The rapist is not profiting from them. The victim is already victimized and will not be un-victimized. So censorship is abhorrent and therefore raped mom on the internet is okay. Right?
The last thing we need is censorship.
No, we need "censorship". There are just some thing which legally must be limited in any society, even a free one like ours. You cannot legally incite riots, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and stuff like that.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, distributing media through private channels only has a negative impact on Hollywood -- in all other venues it's a net benefit to the producers.
God dammit, you must be on the board of every PTA throughout the country. That kind of reasoning is trotted out for every single mommism in existence. Pot as a gateway drug, video games and violence et al.
Unless you're an exquisite troll and that went right over my head, in which case -- congrats.
Have you ever considered that all the discussions in the PTA meetings might have at least SOME truth? After all, a lot of people seem to think the same way.
There I go trolling myself...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That maybe true, but the opposite maybe also be true, if you keep talking about it saying how bad it is, it may encourage people to do it as well.
What ever you do don't push that button, you may not have even thought about pushing that button, but the moment someone tells you not to, you want to.
I don't know how much each effect influences us, I would love to see some studies on adults of reverse physiology adults. I know it works very well in children.
So now that these companies fully admit of scanning content and analyzing the results with express reasons to 'police' their users, does this mean they are now liable if they let *any* illegal content thru?
Also, today its child porn, but what about tomorrow? 'hate' discussions? hacking discussions? warez ? political dissent?
Easy answer is encrypting before you use the services, but this is a much larger issue with long term ramifications...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
except we don't arrest people for photos of any other type of crime scene. those rape photos couldn't be stopped. how would the DMCA even apply?
If you store anything on a cloud server, it will be looked at. Whether it is for kiddie porn, possible IP infringement, passwords, or just useful business information for competitors, it will be looked at.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The big deal here is that we've blown the crime of child porn out of proportion. Thanks to American minimum sentencing laws, anyone caught LOOKING at child porn will be put away for longer than if they murdered the child. You'd have to murder multiple people to get put away longer than someone who is caught MAKING child porn.
Also, open note to Google, MS and everyone else thinking they can get press on this. Please IMPRESS me by showing off something way more drastic like stopping a gang murder or preventing a terrorist attack. Those guys are violent and hard to go after and tend to like vengeance which makes it much more impressive than snagging some nerdy child porn consumer.
Also, as someone who was subjected to the kinds of child abuse these films portray, being molested as a child hasn't destroyed my life or caused deep damage. I'm extremely happy with how things turned out and the only thing is that I'm a bit more kinky than average because I have 10-15 more years of sexual experience than most people thanks to getting started around the age of 3.
In no way am I advocating it, but we should seriously consider why we think murder isn't as important as possessing child porn?
The victim is already victimized and will not be un-victimized.
The victim continues to be victimised for as long as the images are public, because they will continue to be confronted with the images (causing them to relive the trauma) and because anyone they meet has potentially seen the images and will treat them differently because of it.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
This has nothing to do with influencing people. This has to do with the real children who are harmed making them. It is noteworthy that the supreme court ruled recently that depictions of child pornography which are simulations - i.e. computer generated images - are not illegal to have.
There's quite a few Scientologists too, doesn't validate their world view.
...it IS for the children and it's hard to argue with the logic.
No, it's not. You use the words, "vile", "nut cases", "sickness", "special place in prison". All those are emotional words, not logic.
I'll agree that anyone being sexually assaulted and/or raped is bad, child or not. But what if it didn't have to happen at all? For lack of time to find a better article, Wikipedia states, "Some studies... conclude the liberalization of pornography in society may be associated with decreased rape and sexual violence rates." So by banning CP images, a child that might not have been abused, gets abused. Is that really helping the children?
"But what about the children featured in those pictures!", you scream. "They are shamed every time someone views one of them." I can't find the reference, but I have heard that more than a few of the CP pictures are of children who are now dead. Fine, let's limit legal CP to them then. After all, how much shame can a dead person feel? What, if anything, can a dead person feel?
"Some studies show just the opposite of the quote you cherry picked" you respond. Yes, some studies it makes it worse, some say it makes it better, and some find no effect at all. Ignoring two sets of evidence that contradict you're chosen point of view is not logic, but emotion. The most important thing here is: THERE IS NO CONCENSUS. One could logically conclude, therefore, that there is no benefit or disadvanatage to the viewing of CP and banning it is a waste of time, money, and most importantly, rights.
As for the production, I've always wondered if the damage to the children is more psychosomatic than real overall. I was taught this about surviving violence: First are told you are damaged, then you believe you are damaged, then you become damaged.
Finally, I leave you with this quote: The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -- H. L. Mencken
You know, there is an exception to everything. You can't legally scream "FIRE" in a crowded public place as a joke. That's because the possible harm outweighs the harm of censorship. Even though you obviously disagree, the public, for it's own protection has decreed child porn images illegal. This censorship is held to be in the best interest of society. My own political leanings border on anarchy but in this I have to support censorship as well. To allow publishing of this kind of material is worse than censorship.
foil "how to" video
If only I had a large enough collection of tinfoil hats to sell to all the posters freaking out over this.
It is actually not for the children. It is a crusade against pixels. The harm to the children has already be done, often decades earlier. As to people that pay for this stuff, it seems there are almost none. Scanning like this is also quite cheap and produces a lot of "perpetrators" that may never have touched a child. It can easily be adapted to scan for other stuff, like political opinions and the like, once such a system is in place.
There is also the little problem that much of this material does not actually get crated by abusing children. Drawings and pictures taken by teens of themselves for "sexting" are an example.
If this really was about the children, they would care about who abuses children and about rescuing them. Since practically non of the child abuse happening will end up on the Internet (because it does not get photographed/videoed in the first place), this is not even try to help children. Actually helping children would be expensive, slow, and difficult, while what they are doing is cheap and ensures "success". And if you look at what they do with said teens taking pictures of themselves, that amounts to legalized child abuse. Suddenly the children find themselves tried as adults and branded for life. If this really was about protecting children, this whole witch-hunt would not be taking place and a whole different approach would be used.
No, nobody involved, except the gullible public, does care about children. It is a power-grab, a way to create an artificial, mysterious "enemy" to keep the people in fear and to justify ubiquitous surveillance. Just like the "terrorism" meme, and people still fall for that tired old lie.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually, there is good reason to believe that most (practically almost all) child abuse does not get documented and hence does not get published on the Internet. The harm to children is when they get abused, pictures are immaterial to that. Yet the "authorities" focus entirely on this tiny fraction of abuse that gets documented and seem to be much, much more intent in suppressing the documentation instead of finding out who got abused and who did it in order to stop it. And they seem to be doing basically nothing about children getting abused without it getting documented.
And then there is the little problem that people are sent to prison for decades because they had pictures that were not actually produced by abusing children, like drawings and teenagers sexting each other.
These two things show clearly that this is not about protecting children at all. That is just what the gullible public is meant to believe. This is about establishing pervasive online surveillance. "Child pornography" gets trotted out whenever "terrorists" are not doing it anymore. Of course, once these systems are established and working well, their use will expand. It always does.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The problem is that once you have a censorship system in place, it will see a huge expansion of its mission pretty soon. Whenever a "web block-list for child porn" leaks, the few people brave enough to verify it find that many, often the majority of entries actually, do not concern child porn. That is absolute no surprise to any student of history or human nature.
So, as soon as you allow some censorship, you basically will have it all a few years later. And that is exactly what is being done here: Justify it with "child porn" and "terrorism", and then, when the public has accepted and used that (after all, who could be against "protecting children" or "fighting terrorists") the mission quietly expands. Also note that it is easy to turn people into "child porn owners" and "terrorists" by faking evidence and placing it on their computers. Once such arrests have become common enough, nobody will care about those that claim they are being framed. The first case with somebody having had child porn maliciously placed on their computer is already almost a decade old. Too the person years to clear his name.
Also have you wondered why they are parading two cases in front of the press and one from Google and one from MS? That is not plausible at all. They must have found at least a few thousand people doing this. I bet these two cases were selected for maximum effect, with the perpetrators selected to be the least likely to get any sympathy. They are likely also people that do not have the means to defend themselves effectively and that are stupid and likely to admit what they did. I bet they were even selected to look untrustworthy when their pictures make it to the press. This is a very carefully orchestrated PR stunt, and it has absolutely nothing to do with children.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
For example, it could be a Lisa Simpson drawing. That can already get you put away for decades.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Google and Microsoft are going through your private data because of power and control. They also receive Government incentives to do so, so gain cash as a side effect. Any claim of altruism is either a delusional fantasy or sock puppetry.
Just as I said about Google doing the same thing the other day, Microsoft is WRONG to do this. They are not a Law enforcement agency and have no right to read through customer data on their own accord. With a warrant from a court, different story, because that is the legal process. Further, it should not be a company/corporation reading through the data but law enforcement agents. This would help to ensure that evidence is handled properly.
A point to consider is that it has become trivial to inject files into your computer without your knowledge. With all of the back doors we know about, reports like this should be raising all kinds of alarms.
I'll warn you before you reply to save the "save the children" fallacies. I am willing to bet I have more knowledge than you in rhetoric.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And while you're at it, don't forget to drag in all people that view 'rape porn', 'snuff porn', and of course all the people that playing violent video games.
Because, naturally, if they get their jollies from viewing and playing this stuff, it's only a short distance to doing it. And before you know it, half the adult population will be taking pictures of themselves raping/killing/bashing.
I agree. And this is why I posed the question to the OP. He is against "any" censorship. I was curious if that also applies to censorship of negative things that happen to someone close to him who he presumably loves and cares for.
It is one thing to try to portray kiddie porn as "just pictures". It is another thing entirely when they are "just pictures" of your child, or your niece.
This is going to be a bit too metaphysical for this audience, but there truly is "good" and "evil" energy in the world. I do not mean in the Christian sense of heaven and hell. I mean real evil. Real, emotional and mental sickness that should have no place in a civilized society. Yet at the same time, an evil that is inevitable given the reality that the universe must be balanced, and that every action must have an equal and opposite reaction. Evil that is the polar opposite of love and compassion and caring.
"You can't be attracted to or have sex with 14 year-olds" WTF.
First, plenty of teenagers are attracted to people their own age; just because you were never attracted to anyone nor was anyone attracted to you during your junior high years does not mean it does not happen.
Second, plenty of people are attracted to kids that age. I just read about a case in my local, small town newspaper.
Third, there have been plenty of 14 year-olds getting pregnant so we either have a helluva lot of proof that the story of Jesus is plausible or you are full of shit.
I agree with you that the timing is suspicious. It is also coming out at the same time as the story about the FBI infecting Tor users with malware and using that as a means to bring child porn charges against a number of people. (http://gizmodo.com/the-fbi-is-infecting-tor-users-with-malware-to-catch-ki-1616363114). Obviously the message is that Tor is evil and is only used to facilitate child porn, drugs and murder for hire.
I have no idea how large the child porn community is, but I have the sense that it is not really as big and far reaching as the authorities want to make it out to be. On the other hand, maybe the child porn kink is as common as women who like having their hair pulled. Like you said though, it is a convenient boogey man to trot out from time to time to use as cover for much wider ranging programs. "Ignore the fact that we are eavesdropping on EVERYONE because look, we caught a dozen people looking at kiddie porn." Nobody is going to come out and say, "But kiddie porn is a-okay!" And the government also gets to tar anyone against dragnet surveillance. "You mean you DON'T want us to catch perverts into kiddie porn? What are you, a kiddie porn consuming terrorist?!?!"
Can you produce some evidence of some non-objectionable content that is being censored? That is what I am waiting for. I see this slippery slope argument all the time, but I do not see the censorship.
It can be argued that the media is controlled via centralization and therefore heavy handed censorship is not even necessary. It is not necessary because the major media outlets can choose to ignore anything that goes against the status quo.
The MH17 shoot down in the Ukraine is a good example. There is plenty of material out there that calls into question the narrative being put out by the White House and the State Department. But that information is not being pulled off of the internet. It is not being filtered by the ISPs. They do not need to filter it. The average American does not care. You can put the information in front of them. You can show them that we are being herded into World War 3. Unless the message comes from CNN or Time Magazine or the Washington Post, they will not believe it.
How did we leap from not knowing what the pictures actually are to knowing society is done because the fact that the pictures were of the "kids taking a bath" variety?
Would that be the red scare where we knew who most of the offenders were because we were reading the Soviet embassy to Moscow traffic but couldn't make that fact public red scare?
Not exactly how it went down in a case where I am unfortunate enough to know the possessor. That one happened almost exactly as you described it ought to happen.
Well, they start with the guy with the image and ask about where it came from, etc. It is called investigation and it has to start somewhere.
Oh right, I re-read your post and I see where you were going with it now. I concur. As for 'evil', I'm not sure I believe in any moral absolutes but I definitely agree with the sentiment that broken people do exist who have no place (or a very limited place which must be tightly constrained) in human society.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
The censorship is not yet happening or at least not openly, or not in the western world. They are still in the establishing phase and some people have woken up to what is going on. And with enough public outrage, things can be stopped, see, e.g., the "clipper chip". But governments need to be constantly reminded who they server and the "terrorist" and "child porn" specters are doing very good work in eroding that.
So look for the censorship in 10 years or so, but at that time it will be too late to do anything about it. That is why the time to fight this is now.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The reason you cant yell fire is due to the IMMINENT and IMMEDIATE harm it could induce. Your analogy is bad.
Good-bye
At one point I claimed I wanted nothing to do, nor need of a cloud storage.
Dude told me I have the wrong impression of cloud storage, going on to tell me the basics of cloud storage, I just turned and left him, I had no more use for him.
Let's use an extreme example here.
Alright, but it's not going to change anything.
Would you be opposed to allowing your mother to issue a DMCA take down notice?
Yes. The DMCA, as well as copyright, are terrible. Also, besides me despising censorship, copyright is a *terrible* way to handle these issues. Seriously, copyright is meant to benefit the public by promoting innovation and science, not for protecting your personal image. How did things get so silly that we rely on legal hacks to prevent people from spreading around images of you?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Has it occurred to you that I don't go on Slashdot 24/7? Idiot.
Anyway, would you use the same 'logic' if someone said that 1 + 1 = 3 and I didn't respond?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It happens because people keep desensitizing themselves to the shock
Blah, blah, blah, unfounded explanations of a problem that's not even provably large with no actual scientific basis. No, people don't start looking at child porn just because they see an image or oppose censorship, or whatever you're specifically trying to get at. If you want to show otherwise, present some credible scientific evidence, and it can't just be a biased psychology study that uses subjective terminology and subjective data gathering methods; those are bad science.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you don't believe in moral absolutes, why would you believe that some people are objectively 'broken'? That's a subjective term.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If it wasn't your mum taking the photo, then how would she be able to claim copyright and invoke the DMCA?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
No, we don't. The end.
There are just some thing which legally must be limited in any society
Child porn is not one of them. It's like saying we need the TSA or the NSA's surveillance; it's just nonsensical. The country would survive without them.
Anyway, since your brain is dysfunction, allow me to walk you through the series of complicated steps that we'd have to go through in order to not use censorship:
1) Don't allow the government to use censorship.
You cannot legally incite riots, yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and stuff like that.
Idiot. For one thing, you have to intentionally incite riots to be punished. Second of all, just screaming "Fire!" is not forbidden; screaming it while knowing there is no fire and causing a panic, however, is.
Also, I believe such prohibitions to be unconstitutional. The first amendment lists no exceptions. Anyone who starts rioting or panicking is at fault, not the speaker.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This has nothing to do with influencing people.
Not according to what numerous people in this article have told me.
This has to do with the real children who are harmed making them.
Yes, making them. We're talking about sharing the images or looking at the images.
It is noteworthy that the supreme court ruled recently that depictions of child pornography which are simulations - i.e. computer generated images - are not illegal to have.
That's good if so, because that was especially ridiculous.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Now in this case they could be harmful people to society (way more so than a junkie) so having a system to handle them is needed.
Actually, no. Looking at or sharing the images should be completely legal. Anything else is a violation of the first amendment and is nothing more than government censorship.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That would be the red scare where numerous innocent people were harassed or had their lives ruined merely because there were some communists around. Just like now with terrorism, where innocent people are having their rights violated in the name of stopping terrorism, and to hell with the constitution and 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You know, there is an exception to everything.
That's the current reality, which I seek to change in at least a few cases.
You can't legally scream "FIRE" in a crowded public place as a joke.
*yawn*
That's because the possible harm outweighs the harm of censorship.
Nope. There is no harm.
Even though you obviously disagree, the public, for it's own protection has decreed child porn images illegal. This censorship is held to be in the best interest of society.
Even though it doesn't matter as much as protecting free speech, there is no credible scientific evidence that prohibitions on the content itself does any good.
My own political leanings border on anarchy but in this I have to support censorship as well.
Some free speech defender you are. Do you claim to be a supporter of individual liberties? Do you have any hard scientific evidence that it even protects anyone, or are you part of the mindless "for the children" crowd that gets all riled up and emotional whenever a child is mentioned?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Before the SWAT team arrives at your door someone will have reviewed the image to confirm that it not a hash collision. If they don't then they are going to be in big trouble and a large compensation payment will be coming your way. In addition any remotely competent judge will not issue a search warrant based on a hash or more specifically Microsoft's PhotoDNA, because if they do and it turns out to be a hash collision then again they are going to be in big trouble.
Thanks for the link. Yes exactly that sort of thing.
Exactly what mental help do you provide to someone whose sexual orientation is towards kids rather than adults?
I think this is the best comment I ever read on Slashdot! Thank you!!! And thank you for the work you do/did!
I am willing to agree that blanket censorship is a bad thing.
How can you be opposed to the censorship of child pornography? Please avoid the slippery slope argument. That one has been played out.
How about the idea that a pedophile viewing child porn has an outlet that may provide enough of a release for them so that they don't go out and abuse a child themselves?
A message is being sent to the American public: stay compliant and keep your mouth shut, or your dirty laundry is next. I'm no fan of pederasts as their damage propagates to their victims, carrying the misery forward, but they are being cynically used to tell the norms in no uncertain terms: we already know what you've done: step out of line and we'll destroy you. What a free country.
A pedophile is nothing more than a person who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Not all pedophiles rape or even look at child porn, and not all child rapists are even necessarily pedophiles.
You're just trying to sell the myth that being pedophile is really just innocent, nothing to worry about. But that trivialises the problem to the extent that in fact, most people are 'pedophiles' because they can see the attraction in innocent beauty - what we call pedophilism is a much more sinister and harmful condition: when an adult for whatever reason steps over the border between seeing and doing. It is in many ways parallel to the phenomenon that is called 'paranoid schizophrenia': most people have at least sometimes, a conversation going on in their head - like a voice that comments on what they do and see. They are not called schizophrenic, because they are able to distinguish between their inner voice and what happens outside their own mind.
And being pedophile is not like being gay; pedophiles are made, not born. One can argue that honmosexual behaviour is something that strengthens male bonding and therefore would have been an advantage in a small hunter-gatherer community, whereas it is clear that children who have been sexually molested do not survive that unscathed. Whether the acutal damage is primarily due to the sexual element or the physical and mental abuse that accompanies it, or something different, is not really relevant - the bottom line is that pedophiles harm children; and in fact, one of the outcomes of child abuse is that the child is more likely to become a child abuser as well, which makes the problem all the more serious.
No, it's easy, and that's because there is no logic; just a strong desire for more and more government control over what information is accessible to people.
Playing the 'Evil Govt' card is just your form of voodoo. It is astonishing, the amount of power people can imagine "The Government" has; apparently they are also able to cover up all thes UFO landings all over the place.
You're just trying to sell the myth that being pedophile is really just innocent, nothing to worry about.
No, I'm correcting people because they have no idea what "pedophile" means, but you seem to have no problem spreading around myths.
But that trivialises the problem to the extent that in fact, most people are 'pedophiles' because they can see the attraction in innocent beauty - what we call pedophilism is a much more sinister and harmful condition
Correcting an improper use of the term "pedophile" trivializes the problem?
I don't get it. Are you saying that all pedophiles rape? What *are* you saying?
pedophiles are made, not born.
A lot of people argue the same thing about gays. But it doesn't matter, because unless you can present credible, unbiased scientific proof that is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community that this is true 100% of the time (as your statement implies), then it doesn't matter what you believe. This is a matter of science, not of opinion, so get to presenting some science to back up that huge generalization you just made.
But even if it is true, it is *still* irrelevant to the topic at hand.
the bottom line is that pedophiles harm children
No, rapists harm children. Get it right, imbecile. A rapist might be a pedophile, but that doesn't mean all pedophiles are rapists. If you're going to refer to something specific, then at least use the right term.
Playing the 'Evil Govt' card is just your form of voodoo.
No, it isn't, and that doesn't even make sense. I'm saying I oppose government censorship.
It is astonishing, the amount of power people can imagine "The Government" has
The fact is, right now, the government engages in censorship. Do you disagree with this? Because that's what I was saying. Here are some examples: Copyright and the prohibition of child porn. Your move.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I think it sounds pretty silly, because it seems to suppose that all pedophiles are rapists are heart and will, in the absence of porn, rape children. *Maybe* this is true for an elite few, but I don't see pedophiles as fundamentally different from the rest of us, except in the sense that they're attracted to prepubescent children. So, then, I ask you: Would you go out and rape people if you couldn't find a sexual partner or did not have porn? I wouldn't.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The knowledge that someone is viewing porn made of you as a child frequently causes psychological stress to child-porn victims throughout their lives.
Well, they're going to have to get over it, because censorship does not work. They will *never* erase all the content. And not only does it not work, but I don't think it's right to prohibit content just because someone is offended by it, and that doesn't change just because the content shows someone being raped (or murdered, etc.). Yes, prohibiting rape is just fine with me, but people looking at/sharing images? No way.
I can't understand people's obsession with children. What about normal rape porn? Content depicting real murder? Why is so much focus on the children? Irrational nonsense.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
What, if anything, can a dead person feel?
More importantly, I don't think that something should be banned merely because some people find it offensive, child porn or not. Everything in the world would be banned using that subjective standard.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Seriously, I do not see what the issue is. People using all these "free" services are suddenly astounded about being monitored? You get what you pay for, which when that is zero, equals not much privacy. All of them have EULA's which you don't have to read the 300 pages to know will allow them to rifle though your messages and spy on you (primarily for targeted ad content), etc... If you do not like it, do not use these services. Use something more secure, or as you say encrypt stuff. The probably with encryption has always been it is a two way street. So while you might do it, the jerks that send you stuff may not, and then all that data is up for grabs.
Anyway it is good that criminals are idiots I suppose, but people getting their back up about free services which say (even if buried in 300 pages of legal gobbledygook) up front that they are going to effectively spy on you is a bit much.
Technically, the actual diagnosis of the pedophilia disorder is explicitly an extreme. Ignoring the public idiot usage extending to attraction to adolescents, the shrinks (of both bibles IIRC) specify that it's only regarded as a disorder if it's nigh exclusive or compelling, so a more general category includes at least some minority of the officially non-pathological "general public".
Considering how general rapists are very rarely those hard up for sex partners, child molesters very probably aren't acting due to mere sexual frustration either. People regularly ignore that parent molesters, as a particularly blatant example, often still have a sexual relationship with the other parent overlapping the molestation, even continuing decades past the end of the molestation period. They weren't just horny...
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
You seem very upset that I dispute your claims - I wonder why? Or are you going to deny that as well?
Mod this up. There is so much logical fallacy in this thread, it disgusts me. I cannot believe that grown @$$ people cannot THINK. 1. Harming ANYONE is bad, not just children. 2. How does viewing the evidence of harm (without financial support) support the harming of the individual in question? If that were true, then we are ALL guilty of supporting crimes against people (murder videos, Rodney King beating etc) 3. Rape is rape, doesn't matter who the victim is. Stop trying to put child rapists in a class of their own. 4. Being attracted to ANYONE does NOT imply intent to rape. Get it through your head. Most of you are fscking retarded. Seriously...
I guess if I formatted this correctly, it would be easier to read... not that any of you will...
Mod this up. There is so much logical fallacy in this thread, it disgusts me. I cannot believe that grown @$$ people cannot THINK.
1. Harming ANYONE is bad, not just children.
2. How does viewing the evidence of harm (without financial support) support the harming of the individual in question? If that were true, then we are ALL guilty of supporting crimes against people (murder videos, Rodney King beating etc)
3. Rape is rape, doesn't matter who the victim is. Stop trying to put child rapists in a class of their own.
4. Being attracted to ANYONE does NOT imply intent to rape. Get it through your head. Most of you are fscking retarded. Seriously...
You seem very upset that I dispute your claims - I wonder why?
I could say the exact same thing as you. Your problem seems to be that you're under the delusion that someone must be upset if they disagree with you or insult you; that is simply not so.
Or are you going to deny that as well?
Yes. But even if it were true, what is your point in making such a comment? Does it have some deeper meaning?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yeah. That's all. Nothing more than that!
Yes, exactly. Do you have a problem with that definition?
I have bad news for you, but you have a serious mental illness.
I have bad news for you, but you're not even part of the already dubious pseudoscience club. How can you scientifically diagnose random people over the Internet as having mental illnesses simply because they disagree with you? That's quite an interesting ability you have there. Even in the pseudoscience club, a lot of work goes into diagnosing people using certain criteria. Would you care to inform them of your amazing scientific shortcut?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Great, so you agree that closed source is a better solution, since "viewing source code" is really irrelevant to its value, and doesn't encourage production of more. Right?
The ability to view and modify open source code supports the production of more in many cases, because that's what those freedoms allow people to do. It's inherent. It's encouraged.
Assuming it does, of course. Now, what does looking at images have to do with being able to look at source codes to spot back doors, bugs, vulnerabilities, etc.? Nothing. You're just a moron. But also, merely *looking* at the code does not produce more code; that's absurd.
Viewing *encourages* production for exactly the same reason that children will continue doing something obnoxious when they realize it's producing a response in someone else.
Unless you have overwhelming, unbiased scientific evidence of your stupid claim, I suggest you stop making it. But you "for the children" idiots don't even know what science is, I bet.
And even if you had such evidence, it would be irrelevant to whether or not child porn should be banned.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It doesn't take a psychologist to determine that someone has a mentall illness. There is a difference between recognizing someone has one, and diagnosing it as "this" or "that". I can look into someones home and see that they are or are not a hoarder, for example. You told the world about your mental illness in your post. Do you really think that only a psychologists can see it? If so, you can add severe delusion to your list of symptoms.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It doesn't take a psychologist to determine that someone has a mentall illness.
If your definition of "mental illness" is sufficiently broad, I suppose that's true. But that just makes it useless and vague. Then there's also the problem that a "mental illness" simply describes a certain type of behavior or a mindset; it's not inherently bad, regardless of what it is.
I can look into someones home and see that they are or are not a hoarder, for example.
And that's part of the problem. You look into their house once, and assume they are a hoarder. Have you considered there may be special circumstances, and that all the stuff is there only temporarily? Have you considered that they simply don't often clean up? There are many possible factors and explanations, and it's so easy to fall prey to bias to reach a certain conclusion.
You told the world about your mental illness in your post.
No, I didn't. The part you quoted was simply a more accurate definition of what a pedophile is. The truth = mental illness?
Do you really think that only a psychologists can see it?
I think that psychologists are mostly pseudoscientists, and yet still put a lot more work into their jobs than your no-thought-put-into-it assessments.
If so, you can add severe delusion to your list of symptoms.
You seem to have a number of delusions, yourself. Maybe it's the sign of a mental illness? Definitely so. I can look into someone's home and see that they are or are not a hoarder, so I can also say with certainty that you, a random person on the Internet, has a mental disorder. Don't try to logic your way around it; you told the world about your mental illness in your post! I'm simply repeating what you yourself revealed to all of us!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You are an idiot. Plonk.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
If the police get very lucky, the can find and erase all copies of a particular image.
By "get lucky," you must be describing a very unlikely scenario. Even if it's not intentional, it's likely the images will end up in other hands. Regardless, censorship is wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And every bit of the evil you refer to is in human beings, and no human being is completely free of such evil.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This isn't a web block list. All of those I've ever heard of are abused. This is a detection system for specific images that will trigger further investigation. Even if we were to oil the slope, we wouldn't get anywhere harmful.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'd love to have a real answer to that. Right now, what I've got is opinions based on people's gut reactions and validated by shouting loudly.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That's an amazing ability to analyze jellomizer's thoughts. Where did you learn how to use telepathy that well?
After all, jellomizer said nothing about sexual attraction to prepubescent children being normal or good. He's just trying to save a definition that provides a useful distinction between being a heinous criminal and having desires to commit a heinous crime. Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) undoubtedly had pedophilia in the descriptive sense, but he did his best to avoid even disturbing children, so he wasn't a rapist or child molester.
Nor was he defending a right to have perverse sexual desires (perverse in the sense that they're definitely not normal and should not be acted on). I don't think he'd defend my right to have depression issues, either, but I doubt he'd find any moral significance in them.
My attitude is that I want less child abuse (of any sort) going on. I don't care about child pornography except in that context (and in that I don't want anybody to ever show me any of the stuff). So far, the only thing I really know that's bad about the images is that it encourages people to make them, which harms children. I don't know whether pedophiles having such porn will increase or decrease the amount of child molestation.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Drawings are not child pornography in all jurisdictions. A lot of underage sexting will not be child pornography in all jurisdictions. (I read the US and Minnesota statues a while back, in case my son got involved in such sexting.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Shut the fuck up you ignorant douchebag.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Two words: Parallel Construction.
All your ghosts are just false positives.
It seems reasonable to assume that every player on a football team is there more or less voluntarily. Now, consider a video of somebody, naked and restrained, screaming while being flogged. This could either be somebody into the hard stuff specifically allowing this, or somebody grabbed somewhere and forcibly stripped and tied up and whipped.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think that the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is so heinous as to require extraordinary measures. I don't think of pictures of some pervert sodomizing 8 year old boys as "free speech." It's an attack on society. Society has the right to defend itself. You have the freedom to disagree and vote for someone who feels that that kind of thing is okay to be published.
I think that the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is so heinous as to require extraordinary measures.
It's no more worse than the rape of anyone else. But then again, you've likely been indoctrinated to believe that it's some huge problem and that you should turn off your brain whenever children are mentioned. Typical of the "for the children" crowd.
I don't think of pictures of some pervert sodomizing 8 year old boys as "free speech."
Uh-huh. Anything you really don't like doesn't qualify as free speech. Nice No True Scotsman, there.
It's an attack on society.
Bullshit. What melodramatic, sensationalist nonsense. Please give me scientific evidence that society will collapse if pictures aren't censored. There is no actual harm when someone looks at an image, and it's certainly not an "attack on society" (whatever that nonsense means).
Also, terrorism is an actual attack on society, yet I'm 100% opposed to the TSA and the NSA surveillance.
Society has the right to defend itself.
Not if it means infringing upon fundamental individual liberties.
You have the freedom to disagree and vote for someone who feels that that kind of thing is okay to be published.
But the government does not have the power to ignore the US constitution. "Congress shall make no law [...]" And no, newspeak-like nonsense that redefines speech will not help you.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That is why the time to fight this is now.
I see this all the time. Fighting without a goal in mind is futile. Right now there are a small handful of people who are upset about some issues, but nobody is proposing an alternatives. Not only that, but nobody has come up with a concrete example of how their much better alternative reality is being hindered by censorship.
Well, you can either have a large war later, or a small one now. And not, this is not "without a goal" at all. Have a look at history.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The detector is a smaller part of the system. The larger part is what gets the data to it. And that is not tied to one purpose at all.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Have fun with your absolutism.
I will. 1 + 1 = 2.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But if this is not a search for purposes of the 4th Amendment, then the NSA or FBI or whoever can just provide a list of things for service providers to search for in general. Why limit it to child pornography?
And isn't that one of the current proposals to make current government searches legal in light of Snowden's leaks?
With such eloquent rebuttal of my logic, it obviously follows that you want more child abuse.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They're probably already in existence. General purpose ones, and toolkits for crafting targeted attacks.
They don't ; they flag people (OK ; accounts) for human-based investigation.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"