Good point about how valid the link between the individual and the actual IP address might be... however I think the central issue still stands... whoever it was that went there deserved to be looked into.
I disagree though that the "hard core perps" are too savvy. I don't think there's any correlation about being technicall savvy and being a pedophile. I'd bet that the reverse is true.
Now when you talk about organized crime related to this that's a whole other issue. Those are groups that work together to protect their elicit activities, and most likely have adopted some "standards" to protect themselves.
The root of the problem is that as long as there is an audience there will be sources of the material. That's the target of these activities and the deterrent this type of law enforcement activity is intended to create.
A bit Orwellian? Probably. But I don't think it's quite the "blanket" operation people make it sound to be.
It's pretty clear that Verizon, as evidenced by past action, is as close to an "evil" corporation as you can get in their segment. I'm sorry but I think your view of their actions (past actions) as simply efforts to maximizing profits as simply "amoral" is naive.
Let's look at a classic example. Text messaging.
How much bandwidth do you think it takes to send a 256 character text message? Yeah, not much.
Know any teens? High school students with cell phones? What is their favorite past time? Yeah, texting. Now, know any parents of teens that have nightmare stories of the results of buying their teens a cell phone and the hundreds of dollars of cell phone charges related to texting? Yeah, probably every parent you know who has a teen with one. Do you think that wasn't planned by Verizon? You bet it was.
The outrageous texting fees went on for years before finally Verizon realized that their ability to abuse children's need to "belong" (evidenced by constantly texting their friends) and turn that into dollars was coming to an end. So they turn it into a new "we're great guys" PR plan and announce new programs for free unlimited texting. After stalling as long as they could before it either got regulated or they got sued (which probably happened anyway, I don't know).
The point is they knew what they were doing. They do it all the time in any way they can. It's like "rebates" which are simply a way to take an apparent savings and reduce the actual money lost overall since a large percentage of people will forget to send in the rebate form.
But the texting example is the classic and it shows just how "immoral" (not amoral) the executives are at Verizon. I just hope Google weilds a big hammer if they get out of line with the openness rules in these new wirless segments.
This wasn't just some link posted in a random spot, read the story. They posted very descriptively in a forum that is likely frequented by "pedophiles" and described videos of sex acts with a 4 year old... come on.
First, you were likely predisposed to viewing that type of material to be there in the first place...
Second, the post was very very clear on what you would "see".
Anyone going there deserved to be searched imo.
Now, if they posted a short link with a "vague" hint of something, all over the place (including places where you would never find that type of material or discussions) then they would clearly be overstepping the bounds of reason. But in this case it seems very well targeted and probably commendable.
Scary? A bit as people tend to go overboard when they have this kind of success and power. But for now it seems reasonable. For now.
Oh, they'll be held accountable. You can bet that if they start playing games with this spectrum and open access that Google will be the first to jump on the lawsuit bandwagon... and Google DOES have the pockets to see a lawsuit through.
What you really mean to say is that your original comment was meant to be dismissive, probably due to your hating the fact that someone other than you is considered a primary expert on a subject.
Your second comment is you realizing you were called out, appropriately, and need to reply in some way that will backup that you were being dismissive originally (although you claim you weren't). You realized that to do so you had to at least provide some cut and paste arguments to reinforce your dismissive attitude.
Of course you don't come right out and say whether John's approach is better or not, you just try to "imply" it's not without really taking a stance.
Anon, don't let Jtev throw you off your pace. It's obvious he's suffering from self esteem issues (generally characterized by a condescending attitude towards others and an effort to appear "intelligent" or to "lecture" others on correct behavior. The interesting thing is how these types of individuals will take the time to post on a forum, appear to be a good natured person at the beginning (by providing "helpful" info", then poison the whole thing with the aforementioned negative and destructive behavior.
Unfortunately this is the type of thing that keeps people who are looking for information from asking. It's also a tool for these unfortunate persons (like Jtev) to live vicariously through these forum persona's they create since, generally, they have no real friends. I mean would you want to hang out with a guy like Jtev?
Slashdot Mirror
Good point about how valid the link between the individual and the actual IP address might be... however I think the central issue still stands... whoever it was that went there deserved to be looked into. I disagree though that the "hard core perps" are too savvy. I don't think there's any correlation about being technicall savvy and being a pedophile. I'd bet that the reverse is true. Now when you talk about organized crime related to this that's a whole other issue. Those are groups that work together to protect their elicit activities, and most likely have adopted some "standards" to protect themselves. The root of the problem is that as long as there is an audience there will be sources of the material. That's the target of these activities and the deterrent this type of law enforcement activity is intended to create. A bit Orwellian? Probably. But I don't think it's quite the "blanket" operation people make it sound to be.
It's pretty clear that Verizon, as evidenced by past action, is as close to an "evil" corporation as you can get in their segment. I'm sorry but I think your view of their actions (past actions) as simply efforts to maximizing profits as simply "amoral" is naive. Let's look at a classic example. Text messaging. How much bandwidth do you think it takes to send a 256 character text message? Yeah, not much. Know any teens? High school students with cell phones? What is their favorite past time? Yeah, texting. Now, know any parents of teens that have nightmare stories of the results of buying their teens a cell phone and the hundreds of dollars of cell phone charges related to texting? Yeah, probably every parent you know who has a teen with one. Do you think that wasn't planned by Verizon? You bet it was. The outrageous texting fees went on for years before finally Verizon realized that their ability to abuse children's need to "belong" (evidenced by constantly texting their friends) and turn that into dollars was coming to an end. So they turn it into a new "we're great guys" PR plan and announce new programs for free unlimited texting. After stalling as long as they could before it either got regulated or they got sued (which probably happened anyway, I don't know). The point is they knew what they were doing. They do it all the time in any way they can. It's like "rebates" which are simply a way to take an apparent savings and reduce the actual money lost overall since a large percentage of people will forget to send in the rebate form. But the texting example is the classic and it shows just how "immoral" (not amoral) the executives are at Verizon. I just hope Google weilds a big hammer if they get out of line with the openness rules in these new wirless segments.
This wasn't just some link posted in a random spot, read the story. They posted very descriptively in a forum that is likely frequented by "pedophiles" and described videos of sex acts with a 4 year old... come on. First, you were likely predisposed to viewing that type of material to be there in the first place... Second, the post was very very clear on what you would "see". Anyone going there deserved to be searched imo. Now, if they posted a short link with a "vague" hint of something, all over the place (including places where you would never find that type of material or discussions) then they would clearly be overstepping the bounds of reason. But in this case it seems very well targeted and probably commendable. Scary? A bit as people tend to go overboard when they have this kind of success and power. But for now it seems reasonable. For now.
Oh, they'll be held accountable. You can bet that if they start playing games with this spectrum and open access that Google will be the first to jump on the lawsuit bandwagon... and Google DOES have the pockets to see a lawsuit through.
What you really mean to say is that your original comment was meant to be dismissive, probably due to your hating the fact that someone other than you is considered a primary expert on a subject. Your second comment is you realizing you were called out, appropriately, and need to reply in some way that will backup that you were being dismissive originally (although you claim you weren't). You realized that to do so you had to at least provide some cut and paste arguments to reinforce your dismissive attitude. Of course you don't come right out and say whether John's approach is better or not, you just try to "imply" it's not without really taking a stance.
Anon, don't let Jtev throw you off your pace. It's obvious he's suffering from self esteem issues (generally characterized by a condescending attitude towards others and an effort to appear "intelligent" or to "lecture" others on correct behavior. The interesting thing is how these types of individuals will take the time to post on a forum, appear to be a good natured person at the beginning (by providing "helpful" info", then poison the whole thing with the aforementioned negative and destructive behavior.
Unfortunately this is the type of thing that keeps people who are looking for information from asking. It's also a tool for these unfortunate persons (like Jtev) to live vicariously through these forum persona's they create since, generally, they have no real friends. I mean would you want to hang out with a guy like Jtev?