Windows is the low hanging fruit of the exploit world, but Linux (and other Unix systems) tend to be high value targets. Nevertheless, it's the Windows boxes that end up joining the spammer's bot armies.
You're talking about home Windows clients maintained by random people running as administrator at all times.
You obviously don't know much about the NT security model, so talking enterprise level NT security would be a waste of time.
Let me give you a quick guide:
SELinux is just a retro-fitted security model. It's a Mandatory Access Control scheme, like what was available in MULTICS in the 60's. Same with AppArmor.
This same technology is available in NT, they call it Mandatory Integrity Control.
Furthermore, Windows has a much stronger Address Space Layout Randomization system... only the most patched-up hardened versions of Linux are even competitive with NT 6 on this front... and they're still inferior.
It's undisputed that NT 6 is more well defended from a direct hacker attacker, specifically remote takeover by hackers because of its more effective anti-exploit code, specifically ASLR.
However, by practice, Windows home users are more likely to be engaging in risky behaviors and running as administrator, etc. If Linux was A) Popular, B) Compatible between distributions, and C) Generally run as root by its users, we'd see the same sort of viruses and exploits. Unix is preserved from this by its lack of popularity on home computers and its security through obfuscation with its incompatibility. So some of its greatest weaknesses become strengths on the apparent security front. If Ubuntu ever breaks 1%, it'll likely become a honeypot for remote exploitation, as Mac will soon be.
An enterprise running a well maintained top-to-bottom NT system will be much more secure against direct attack... not to mention cheaper to maintain. Just look at Microsoft...
Somehow, all the freetards in the world want to hack them and oddly no one succeeds. What you've given me up there is just words, really. You think it's more secure because that's what "people say". If you looked at the comparison of number of deployments vs. successful attacks, NT 6 would dominate.
I don't really worry about people taking me seriously on slashdot...
SELinux is a retro-fitted Mandatory Access Control and Group Policy Scheme... that's it.
Windows has had fine-grained ACL's and group policies forever (especially accessible ones for the enterprise) and NT 6 has a very decent Mandatory Access Control system.
I am tired of Linux types acting like SELinux is magical and somehow anything more than bringing Linux to the security sensibility of MULTICS, which had MAC's back when UNIX was still basically a hacked up computer virus.
There's nothing offered in the retro-fitting solutions you've described that aren't available in NT 6. All I see is a deficiency in terms of anti-exploit code and a better use of NX-bit based technologies in NT.
Oh, yeah. Apache in a chroot [seaoffire.net], SELinux [beginlinux.com], and AppArmor [novell.com] make for poor security practices. Friggin' swiss chesse, that is!
Security retro-fitting is all lovely and all, but it's still POSIX. It's conceptually insecure and will never really stand to a concentrated attack.
Realistically, the platforms are similarly secure. Linux has never been terribly impressive security wise, comparatively. Just culturally.
How can you not know it has an IM client, then? Empathy is integrated as one of the main components of Moblin.
Here's an experiment for you to try in the Moblin beta: open up an IM and go along and do something else. Someone might IM you. The only way to know is to occasionally check the desktop with the IM window.
I am not trolling. I tried to use it and its interface was missing very obvious things, like basic window management. It requires the user to actually poll their windows for state changes manually.
Despite being very technically well contructed (like ConnMan vs NetworkManager), there's such glaring usability holes that it literally bewilders me.
Once I figured out how to get Windows FLP running properly on my 900a with its molasses slow SSD, Moblin seemed like some sort of bad dream I had.
I have a Windows desktop in classic mode with the start menu on the side of the screen (to capitalize on the form factor), NTFS access time disabled, page file disabled, and Opera with file caching disabled. The battey life is nuts, it boots/sleeps/wakes super fast, applications are aware of the network state, etc... then everything is faster, especially graphics/sound intensive things like Flash. It's pretty luxurious.
I struggled with linux on this thing for months and Moblin was my last hope. I am pretty bitter about it. It's such a near miss.
Softmaker Office 2006 is available for free for Windows, not trialware or anything. If you're running Windows and you'd usually just be using AbiWord or OpenOffice, it's way lighter and much nicer.
Notice: Only TextMaker and PlanMaker are present (Word and Excel). If you need more advanced functionality, give 2008 a shot. They have an excellent student discount, also.
I don't mean to just pimp software or anything, but this is a great product from a tiny software company in Germany, and it has quite a legacy.
I've enjoyed it so far as a lightweight word processor for my EeePC.
...and there is "anti-exploit" code in Unix. It's probably been around longer than the comparable "code" in DOS and Windows. The fact that Unix is a harder target and it's users are intolerably smug doesn't mean they aren't thinking about the problem.
The only thing protecting UNIX from viruses is incompatibility. The more mainstream the system gets, the less secure it will be in that regard. Barring security through obscurity, a UNIX system is a sieve comparatively. Windows' anti-exploit code is insane... this is something they come out ahead on. The idea of the POSIX model being inherently more secure is just a myth, it has a shared memory architecture that can never be hardened past a certain point.
When's the last time Windows Server systems were taken out by a major virus or worm? Conficker preyed on idiots with their doors wide open, not enterprise systems. I'd say this is just FUD.
Hey, I've got a great new idea! What if the interface allowed for some way for minimized applications to notify the user of something! It would be awesome if--get this--when someone IM'ed me, I would have some way to know, so I could switch to that window and respond!
Ooh! And another! What if they made it so every time I tried to reach the upper toolbar of my application, a giant black bar didn't come down, grey out my screen, and interrupt me!
Wait... what if I had some way of knowing which applications were open and where they were located at any time, instead of having to manage my desktop in my mind??
What do you guys think? I'm going to submit these to the Moblin team straight-away!
Last I heard, the most commonly hacked webserver was Apache/Linux. A secure legacy won't protect you forever... now that it's popular, the poor security practices in the platform are beginning to be exploited...
I would say Microsoft is rather catching up and surpassing the linux platform in security, given the recent figures.
There is almost no anti-exploit code in linux, anyway, so once you're through the security, you know exactly where you are and what you're doing. Microsoft has a tremendous advantage, having been targeted for years... their level of defense is now much higher. They withstand attacks the linux platform could never find the resources to repel.
So the cost Microsoft has spent weathering this will reduce the TCO of all their users... and now they're even offering anti-virus software for free. I'd say they're doing fine.
You are actually saying that it should be illegal to be a person who someone believs to be a risk to children?
He published the images, you imbecile! He made his sexual attraction to the children known by using their images in pornography.
That absolutely should be illegal. Any undeniable indication that a middle aged man is lusting after his neighbor's kids, especially one that's actually published online, should be pursued by the law. They're lucky they got any notice at all that this man was interested in them before he went ahead and did something.
If he hadn't published the images, maybe it would be different. If they weren't LOCAL KIDS, maybe it would be different-- but this is the case as it occurred. What are you, some sort of retarded libertarian? You believe that the law men should stay off people's land, no matter what sort of danger they are ADVERTISING themselves to be? Sometimes things are just clear cut. Whether or not he was going to rape the children, he ADVERTISED that he was sexually attracted to them.
C# is less productive than languages like PHP or Python, which are used at places such as Google and Yahoo, so it is hardly a panacea for business apps.
I can't believe I missed this. You used Google and Yahoo as an example of efficient businesses? Google has one profitable product, Search, which when combined with their bull-headed investor-fu, keeps the company barely running. They're amazing at internal mismanagement and losing money. Anything not involved in their search engine is a monetary failure. See youtube: it manages to bleed $2 million a day in losses out of Google. And yahoo? They're in freefall... shedding employees rapidly. You know, I am talking about small businesses and real companies, not web companies... I am talking about companies that actually have to make money.
No wonder web applications have picked up, while traditional desktop apps are fading.
When did they first start declaring traditional applications dead? Was it sometime in the 90's? That's going really well, I can see. Web technologies are a clusterfuck. Either we reduce the amount of energy used on our computing infrastructure and pull out of trendy and inefficient technologies like ruby on rails, or we get to enjoy a desktop running through a browser like some sort of hall of mirrors of API's. It doesn't matter how efficient linux or windows handles memory or threading, because everything will be constrained through Firefox's awkward and slow handling of your system resources.
It's faster for enterprises to hammer out quick.NET apps every now and then than screw with some sort of silly LAMP stack... I would say the linux community is picking up Mono with a passion. There's no question why, there isn't a development solution comparable to Mono/GTK# in the linux ecosytem... to the extent that RMS has to frantically beg developers not to use it so he can deal with his wacky innovation-phobia.
The fact that you compared.NET/C# to PHP simply suggests to me that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, anyway. You tell me the future won't have JIT-compiled bytecode while pushing the most insanely heavy and inefficient desktop code interpreting system imaginable, the web browser.
The "professional" software world has been using Java for a long time. C# is well known for its non-portability. Unless you mean portability in the Microsoft sense, i.e. across Windows versions.
Even my open source nut friends are starting to forsake Java for.NET. With a bit of care, you can write an app that smoothly works on Linux or Windows, but in general the portability between Windows versions (mobile to 7 and everything in between) and between Linux distributions has been enough of a boon. It outperforms Java to a shameful extent for desktop apps, and C# is just a nice language. It's just a solid offering.
You have like one solid development environment on this entire platform and you guys are trying to burn it at the stake. You're making linux a joke.
In the end, there will be a war between people who actually need coherent technologies to write code on and the massive GNU/FSF circle jerk, who would have you run your enterprise into the ground with crappy half-assed technologies to maintain your "freedom". Who needs engineering standards? It's more fun to be a hacker!
Thank goodness no one really listens to RMS. He's just a crazy old man living in a cave, really. Look at how much the world accomplishes without him. What does he do anymore? He's just a loud-mouthed obstructionist.
Let's hear it from someone who has a real job and has to face these technologies day to day.
No. If you actually took the trouble of reading what RMS wrote, he said specifically that *any*.NET platform implementation will have the same problem as Mono. He says free software developers should not develop apps that use the.NET platform, but that it is ok to have.NET platforms to run other existing.NET apps.
Wow, you morons are just as bad as Oprah viewers. I suppose you're not going to vaccinate your children, either?
It's a fantastic system to develop on and a huge time saver. Quite simply, companies that don't drink the moron koolaid will get more work done and enjoy better interoperability. The open source world lacks the vision to create cohesive platforms like this, so there's nothing wrong with implementing a well designed and solid one from the professional software world.
Besides, all free implementations of.NET are legally protected from prosecution for Microsoft's patents. If they go back on this, they could get countersued for opening them up in the first place.
Hardly. Her photographs are her means of easy money. She's not effected in any way.
What? We're talking about a man making pornographic photographs with images of local children he has access to. If you don't see the danger in that, then you're an idiot. I am glad you're not in charge of anything important.
As for the rest of your comment, I don't even know why you wrote it. Would you like me to repeat my opinion on the matter? This study whatshisface was quoting sounds like something out of NAMBLA. It wasn't referenced anyway.
You may think that because you fail to understand that slashdot is not a general news site, the articles about child porn that are discussed here, are always about someone accused or convicted for acts that don't actually involve abusing children in front of a camera! If such an article was discussed here, you would find, no doubt, that slashdot was quite anti-child porn.
It may interest you to know that you can also be arrested for publishing your fantasies about killing the president. So, perhaps it's not so weird that publishing sexual fantasy images of local children (those who you actually know) in a sexual context is an advertisement of your attraction to them. This constitutes a red flag and represents a risk to the children. It's a special case where such behavior is illegal and the news article is painting it as a "virtual pornography" case when the reality is that it has more to do with his proximity to the victims.
Well... tough. I'd like to disagree with gravity (who wouldn't want to fly?), but the facts make that a little difficult. Same goes with this. If the studies have shown a decrease in actual child abuse due to the viewing of child pornography by pedophiles, then who are you to disagree?
You can't just say "studies have shown..." Who conducted this study, NAMBLA? I have a legal case to reference where a man was tried and prosecuted, and what do you have? Some anonymous study.
A man published an image of a child he knew and had access to in a pornographic manner. He advertised his attraction to these local girls and published it on the internet. He put up his own red flag and was found out.
I think you misread something. He did not actually cut off a child's face and sew it onto a woman's body. Pornography censorship--especially of artificial porn--is always a criminalizing of thought.
They were local girls. Girls he knew and had physical access to. Are you telling me that behavior constitutes no risk to the children? It would be different if there were an illustration, or maybe even if he'd only used celebrity photos. The point is that the man was demonstrating a sexual attraction for young girls in his area and publishing said attraction in the form of simulated pornography. It's exploitation of a minor because actual girls he knew were involved in the enterprise, if only passively.
To me, this "crime" is, at best, an unauthorized use of somebody's image. There was no victim. There was no harm. In all reality, the girls would never have even known this was going on until the prosecutors decided to "protect" them from seeing it and thus turned it into an international news story. I bet they know all about it now.
Did you notice that the perpetrator used images of local girls? Girls he actually knew in his area. We've got some guy making and publishing pornographic images featuring the faces of neighborhood girls. That's basically advertising his sexual attraction to young girls that he knows and has physical access to. It constitutes a risk, in this case. It exposes predatory intent on the part of the man.
Laws have been specifically passed to prevent this sort of thing. You may not use a child's image in pornographic matter. There are laws against it--and laws are not viral, there is no slippery slope, this is case where protection of children against pedophiles is of the utmost importance. If a couple creepy people who merely fantasize about(but do not end up raping) local children get taken down in the process, it's probably beneficial to society.
The fact that the faces were of children worsens the offense, because there is no possibility of informed consent, and the potential for (emotional or psychological) damage is greater, but doesn't change the class of offense from one of privacy violation and indecency to one of rape, abuse or assault.
It's a liberal interpretation of the law by any mark and as much as I want to believe that somehow children are protected from this sort of thing, I think what we're finding is that neither of these laws really fit the case.
I can see the reason for them not wanting a culture of child abuse or sexualization to be legitimized, but this one of those issues where we're dealing with a more. A child was not directly harmed here but the behavior of this adult indicates a dangerous form of deviance.
I can't imagine what would have happened if for whatever reason the child would have seen the image. Furthermore, what if this child was someone the perpetrator actually knew? It would then indicate a danger to the child.
This issue would be much more cut and dry to me if this man was merely creating the likeness of a child, since it would be easy to draw the lines between reality and the involvement of an actual victim.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows is the low hanging fruit of the exploit world, but Linux (and other Unix systems) tend to be high value targets. Nevertheless, it's the Windows boxes that end up joining the spammer's bot armies.
You're talking about home Windows clients maintained by random people running as administrator at all times.
You obviously don't know much about the NT security model, so talking enterprise level NT security would be a waste of time.
Let me give you a quick guide:
SELinux is just a retro-fitted security model. It's a Mandatory Access Control scheme, like what was available in MULTICS in the 60's. Same with AppArmor.
This same technology is available in NT, they call it Mandatory Integrity Control.
Furthermore, Windows has a much stronger Address Space Layout Randomization system... only the most patched-up hardened versions of Linux are even competitive with NT 6 on this front... and they're still inferior.
It's undisputed that NT 6 is more well defended from a direct hacker attacker, specifically remote takeover by hackers because of its more effective anti-exploit code, specifically ASLR.
However, by practice, Windows home users are more likely to be engaging in risky behaviors and running as administrator, etc. If Linux was A) Popular, B) Compatible between distributions, and C) Generally run as root by its users, we'd see the same sort of viruses and exploits. Unix is preserved from this by its lack of popularity on home computers and its security through obfuscation with its incompatibility. So some of its greatest weaknesses become strengths on the apparent security front. If Ubuntu ever breaks 1%, it'll likely become a honeypot for remote exploitation, as Mac will soon be.
An enterprise running a well maintained top-to-bottom NT system will be much more secure against direct attack... not to mention cheaper to maintain. Just look at Microsoft...
Somehow, all the freetards in the world want to hack them and oddly no one succeeds. What you've given me up there is just words, really. You think it's more secure because that's what "people say". If you looked at the comparison of number of deployments vs. successful attacks, NT 6 would dominate.
I don't really worry about people taking me seriously on slashdot...
SELinux is a retro-fitted Mandatory Access Control and Group Policy Scheme... that's it.
Windows has had fine-grained ACL's and group policies forever (especially accessible ones for the enterprise) and NT 6 has a very decent Mandatory Access Control system.
I am tired of Linux types acting like SELinux is magical and somehow anything more than bringing Linux to the security sensibility of MULTICS, which had MAC's back when UNIX was still basically a hacked up computer virus.
There's nothing offered in the retro-fitting solutions you've described that aren't available in NT 6. All I see is a deficiency in terms of anti-exploit code and a better use of NX-bit based technologies in NT.
Oh, yeah. Apache in a chroot [seaoffire.net], SELinux [beginlinux.com], and AppArmor [novell.com] make for poor security practices. Friggin' swiss chesse, that is!
Security retro-fitting is all lovely and all, but it's still POSIX. It's conceptually insecure and will never really stand to a concentrated attack.
Realistically, the platforms are similarly secure. Linux has never been terribly impressive security wise, comparatively. Just culturally.
How can you not know it has an IM client, then? Empathy is integrated as one of the main components of Moblin.
Here's an experiment for you to try in the Moblin beta: open up an IM and go along and do something else. Someone might IM you. The only way to know is to occasionally check the desktop with the IM window.
I am not trolling. I tried to use it and its interface was missing very obvious things, like basic window management. It requires the user to actually poll their windows for state changes manually.
Despite being very technically well contructed (like ConnMan vs NetworkManager), there's such glaring usability holes that it literally bewilders me.
Once I figured out how to get Windows FLP running properly on my 900a with its molasses slow SSD, Moblin seemed like some sort of bad dream I had.
I have a Windows desktop in classic mode with the start menu on the side of the screen (to capitalize on the form factor), NTFS access time disabled, page file disabled, and Opera with file caching disabled. The battey life is nuts, it boots/sleeps/wakes super fast, applications are aware of the network state, etc... then everything is faster, especially graphics/sound intensive things like Flash. It's pretty luxurious.
I struggled with linux on this thing for months and Moblin was my last hope. I am pretty bitter about it. It's such a near miss.
It doesn't sound like you've used Moblin. Go away.
Softmaker Office 2006 is available for free for Windows, not trialware or anything. If you're running Windows and you'd usually just be using AbiWord or OpenOffice, it's way lighter and much nicer.
http://softmakeroffice.com/
Notice: Only TextMaker and PlanMaker are present (Word and Excel). If you need more advanced functionality, give 2008 a shot. They have an excellent student discount, also.
I don't mean to just pimp software or anything, but this is a great product from a tiny software company in Germany, and it has quite a legacy.
I've enjoyed it so far as a lightweight word processor for my EeePC.
Have you tried Moblin? All these things are missing. I kid you not.
Microsoft has no dress code.
around longer than the comparable "code" in DOS and Windows. The
fact that Unix is a harder target and it's users are intolerably
smug doesn't mean they aren't thinking about the problem.
The only thing protecting UNIX from viruses is incompatibility. The more mainstream the system gets, the less secure it will be in that regard. Barring security through obscurity, a UNIX system is a sieve comparatively. Windows' anti-exploit code is insane... this is something they come out ahead on. The idea of the POSIX model being inherently more secure is just a myth, it has a shared memory architecture that can never be hardened past a certain point.
When's the last time Windows Server systems were taken out by a major virus or worm? Conficker preyed on idiots with their doors wide open, not enterprise systems. I'd say this is just FUD.
Hey, I've got a great new idea! What if the interface allowed for some way for minimized applications to notify the user of something! It would be awesome if--get this--when someone IM'ed me, I would have some way to know, so I could switch to that window and respond!
Ooh! And another! What if they made it so every time I tried to reach the upper toolbar of my application, a giant black bar didn't come down, grey out my screen, and interrupt me!
Wait... what if I had some way of knowing which applications were open and where they were located at any time, instead of having to manage my desktop in my mind??
What do you guys think? I'm going to submit these to the Moblin team straight-away!
Great job on an easy to use desktop, guys!!!!
Last I heard, the most commonly hacked webserver was Apache/Linux. A secure legacy won't protect you forever... now that it's popular, the poor security practices in the platform are beginning to be exploited...
I would say Microsoft is rather catching up and surpassing the linux platform in security, given the recent figures.
There is almost no anti-exploit code in linux, anyway, so once you're through the security, you know exactly where you are and what you're doing. Microsoft has a tremendous advantage, having been targeted for years... their level of defense is now much higher. They withstand attacks the linux platform could never find the resources to repel.
So the cost Microsoft has spent weathering this will reduce the TCO of all their users... and now they're even offering anti-virus software for free. I'd say they're doing fine.
You are actually saying that it should be illegal to be a person who someone believs to be a risk to children?
He published the images, you imbecile! He made his sexual attraction to the children known by using their images in pornography.
That absolutely should be illegal. Any undeniable indication that a middle aged man is lusting after his neighbor's kids, especially one that's actually published online, should be pursued by the law. They're lucky they got any notice at all that this man was interested in them before he went ahead and did something.
If he hadn't published the images, maybe it would be different. If they weren't LOCAL KIDS, maybe it would be different-- but this is the case as it occurred. What are you, some sort of retarded libertarian? You believe that the law men should stay off people's land, no matter what sort of danger they are ADVERTISING themselves to be? Sometimes things are just clear cut. Whether or not he was going to rape the children, he ADVERTISED that he was sexually attracted to them.
C# is less productive than languages like PHP or Python, which are used at places such as Google and Yahoo, so it is hardly a panacea for business apps.
I can't believe I missed this. You used Google and Yahoo as an example of efficient businesses? Google has one profitable product, Search, which when combined with their bull-headed investor-fu, keeps the company barely running. They're amazing at internal mismanagement and losing money. Anything not involved in their search engine is a monetary failure. See youtube: it manages to bleed $2 million a day in losses out of Google. And yahoo? They're in freefall... shedding employees rapidly. You know, I am talking about small businesses and real companies, not web companies... I am talking about companies that actually have to make money.
No wonder web applications have picked up, while traditional desktop apps are fading.
When did they first start declaring traditional applications dead? Was it sometime in the 90's? That's going really well, I can see. Web technologies are a clusterfuck. Either we reduce the amount of energy used on our computing infrastructure and pull out of trendy and inefficient technologies like ruby on rails, or we get to enjoy a desktop running through a browser like some sort of hall of mirrors of API's. It doesn't matter how efficient linux or windows handles memory or threading, because everything will be constrained through Firefox's awkward and slow handling of your system resources.
It's faster for enterprises to hammer out quick .NET apps every now and then than screw with some sort of silly LAMP stack... I would say the linux community is picking up Mono with a passion. There's no question why, there isn't a development solution comparable to Mono/GTK# in the linux ecosytem... to the extent that RMS has to frantically beg developers not to use it so he can deal with his wacky innovation-phobia.
The fact that you compared .NET/C# to PHP simply suggests to me that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, anyway. You tell me the future won't have JIT-compiled bytecode while pushing the most insanely heavy and inefficient desktop code interpreting system imaginable, the web browser.
The "professional" software world has been using Java for a long time. C# is well known for its non-portability. Unless you mean portability in the Microsoft sense, i.e. across Windows versions.
Even my open source nut friends are starting to forsake Java for .NET. With a bit of care, you can write an app that smoothly works on Linux or Windows, but in general the portability between Windows versions (mobile to 7 and everything in between) and between Linux distributions has been enough of a boon. It outperforms Java to a shameful extent for desktop apps, and C# is just a nice language. It's just a solid offering.
You have like one solid development environment on this entire platform and you guys are trying to burn it at the stake. You're making linux a joke.
In the end, there will be a war between people who actually need coherent technologies to write code on and the massive GNU/FSF circle jerk, who would have you run your enterprise into the ground with crappy half-assed technologies to maintain your "freedom". Who needs engineering standards? It's more fun to be a hacker!
Thank goodness no one really listens to RMS. He's just a crazy old man living in a cave, really. Look at how much the world accomplishes without him. What does he do anymore? He's just a loud-mouthed obstructionist.
Let's hear it from someone who has a real job and has to face these technologies day to day.
No. If you actually took the trouble of reading what RMS wrote, he said specifically that *any* .NET platform implementation will have the same problem as Mono. He says free software developers should not develop apps that use the .NET platform, but that it is ok to have .NET platforms to run other existing .NET apps.
Wow, you morons are just as bad as Oprah viewers. I suppose you're not going to vaccinate your children, either?
It's a fantastic system to develop on and a huge time saver. Quite simply, companies that don't drink the moron koolaid will get more work done and enjoy better interoperability. The open source world lacks the vision to create cohesive platforms like this, so there's nothing wrong with implementing a well designed and solid one from the professional software world.
Besides, all free implementations of .NET are legally protected from prosecution for Microsoft's patents. If they go back on this, they could get countersued for opening them up in the first place.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00218.html
http://www.mono-project.com/Licensing
Hardly. Her photographs are her means of easy money. She's not effected in any way.
What? We're talking about a man making pornographic photographs with images of local children he has access to. If you don't see the danger in that, then you're an idiot. I am glad you're not in charge of anything important.
As for the rest of your comment, I don't even know why you wrote it. Would you like me to repeat my opinion on the matter? This study whatshisface was quoting sounds like something out of NAMBLA. It wasn't referenced anyway.
Which still isn't illegal, btw.
Yes, it is. You would then be considered "in control" of the vehicle while intoxicated.
You may think that because you fail to understand that slashdot is not a general news site, the articles about child porn that are discussed here, are always about someone accused or convicted for acts that don't actually involve abusing children in front of a camera! If such an article was discussed here, you would find, no doubt, that slashdot was quite anti-child porn.
It may interest you to know that you can also be arrested for publishing your fantasies about killing the president. So, perhaps it's not so weird that publishing sexual fantasy images of local children (those who you actually know) in a sexual context is an advertisement of your attraction to them. This constitutes a red flag and represents a risk to the children. It's a special case where such behavior is illegal and the news article is painting it as a "virtual pornography" case when the reality is that it has more to do with his proximity to the victims.
Well... tough. I'd like to disagree with gravity (who wouldn't want to fly?), but the facts make that a little difficult. Same goes with this. If the studies have shown a decrease in actual child abuse due to the viewing of child pornography by pedophiles, then who are you to disagree?
You can't just say "studies have shown..." Who conducted this study, NAMBLA? I have a legal case to reference where a man was tried and prosecuted, and what do you have? Some anonymous study.
A man published an image of a child he knew and had access to in a pornographic manner. He advertised his attraction to these local girls and published it on the internet. He put up his own red flag and was found out.
I think you misread something. He did not actually cut off a child's face and sew it onto a woman's body. Pornography censorship--especially of artificial porn--is always a criminalizing of thought.
They were local girls. Girls he knew and had physical access to. Are you telling me that behavior constitutes no risk to the children? It would be different if there were an illustration, or maybe even if he'd only used celebrity photos. The point is that the man was demonstrating a sexual attraction for young girls in his area and publishing said attraction in the form of simulated pornography. It's exploitation of a minor because actual girls he knew were involved in the enterprise, if only passively.
To me, this "crime" is, at best, an unauthorized use of somebody's image. There was no victim. There was no harm. In all reality, the girls would never have even known this was going on until the prosecutors decided to "protect" them from seeing it and thus turned it into an international news story. I bet they know all about it now.
Did you notice that the perpetrator used images of local girls? Girls he actually knew in his area. We've got some guy making and publishing pornographic images featuring the faces of neighborhood girls. That's basically advertising his sexual attraction to young girls that he knows and has physical access to. It constitutes a risk, in this case. It exposes predatory intent on the part of the man.
Laws have been specifically passed to prevent this sort of thing. You may not use a child's image in pornographic matter. There are laws against it--and laws are not viral, there is no slippery slope, this is case where protection of children against pedophiles is of the utmost importance. If a couple creepy people who merely fantasize about(but do not end up raping) local children get taken down in the process, it's probably beneficial to society.
I am tired of replying to this same thing over and over again. Read the other sub-threads. The one between snookums and I covers you arguments.
The fact that the faces were of children worsens the offense, because there is no possibility of informed consent, and the potential for (emotional or psychological) damage is greater, but doesn't change the class of offense from one of privacy violation and indecency to one of rape, abuse or assault.
It's a liberal interpretation of the law by any mark and as much as I want to believe that somehow children are protected from this sort of thing, I think what we're finding is that neither of these laws really fit the case.
I can see the reason for them not wanting a culture of child abuse or sexualization to be legitimized, but this one of those issues where we're dealing with a more. A child was not directly harmed here but the behavior of this adult indicates a dangerous form of deviance.
I can't imagine what would have happened if for whatever reason the child would have seen the image. Furthermore, what if this child was someone the perpetrator actually knew? It would then indicate a danger to the child.
This issue would be much more cut and dry to me if this man was merely creating the likeness of a child, since it would be easy to draw the lines between reality and the involvement of an actual victim.
The closest one i can think of would be taking 5 or 6 drinks and then walking home, but since you are too drunk to drive, they bust you anyway.
This thread is on spin cycle.