It would be more accurate to say I think that of all the places to draw your line in the sand this is the silliest.
But you're not even talking about my line to begin with; I don't agree with many of the laws you mentioned.
The law should be consistent, and proportional.
Right, so scrap those other laws.
Even if you disagree with libel, trademark, and copyright, you would probably agree that a prohibition on exchanging pictures of someone being criminally abused against their will is less of an abridgement of free speech than those, and that it would be pretty consistent with our legal system.
I don't agree with that.
So of all the places to just now draw your line in the sand and stand up against 'the man' telling you what you can or can't say... distribution of child porn?
Posting on Slashdot hardly qualifies as standing up against anyone. That said, I did not draw my line just recently, and I can be vocal about multiple issues almost at once.
Yes, allow the government to violate the constitution and people's rights as it pleases; that sounds like a good plan, and it isn't as if that has ever backfired in the past.
No, a "determined attacker" means anybody who breaks through the mostly illusory security that Tor provides.
I was talking about this case, though. This time government thugs are the attackers. And yes, Tor isn't infallible, but this was mostly a case of incompetent users being incompetent users.
As for paedos, I expect every single law enforcement agency in the world would dearly love to swoop down and arrest these scumbags and I'm happy to see them do it.
You're part of the problem. You seem to be willing to let law enforcement violate people's rights and privacy if they only do it to people you don't like (in this case, the pedophile bogeyman, rather than the terrorist bogeyman). This is what leads to nonsense such as the TSA.
That said, why do you seem so concerned about pedophiles in general? Pedophiles aren't necessarily child molesters, don't necessarily look at child porn, and aren't necessarily attracted solely to children.
I never assumed Tor to be secure and anyone who did and used it to conduct illegal activity is an idiot and deserves everything they get.
As you said, Tor is fallible, but that doesn't make it useless. These people were simply incompetent for the most part.
Many more people were affected than just those who conducted illegal activities.
whist court-backed intelligence gathering on US citizens
It might be backed by a court, but the warrants do not appear to be constitutional (some lack probable cause and fail to specifically describe that which is to be searched).
Freedom is not a stretch. I believe that, in many instances, privacy should be considered a fundamental right. Actually, the 4th amendment does, in a way, describe a right that the NSA violates; they don't have any probable cause to do any of this.
That seems rather odd, given the NSA's actions (even before the drug trafficker nonsense). I think this is more of a case of people pretending they care about individual liberties.
It doesn't give anonymity from a determined attacker and if paedos thought it did then more fool them.
A "determined attacker" in this case simply means a government willing to do shady and manipulative things to achieve their goals. The pedophile bogeyman isn't nearly as scary as you make it out to be (much like the terrorist bogeyman).
In this case, nobody but the employer and the investigators know exactly how the employer's report described the evidence.
He must have told many lies or exaggerated greatly if he somehow made it sound convincing. But lying or exaggerating is simply unnecessary in this case; Law enforcement would overreact no matter what.
You are attempting to conflate attempts to prevent child molesting with all other "over the top" security measures.
Where did that happen? I have no problem with trying to prevent people from raping others, but if your solution involves violating people's rights or utilizing censorship, I don't want anything to do with it.
Children and animals deserve special protection.
What does having "special protection" entail? Does it involve censorship or people losing their rights just so certain people or animals can have this "special protection"? If so, throw that "special protection" idea right in the garbage.
But those who prey on children who are unable to protect themselves deserve special attention, and whether you understand this or not it needs to happen.
The world will not fall apart if you security theater people don't get your way.
Certainly "think of the children" is misused as justification for intrusions on civil liberties, but the bottom line is that adults can protect themselves from such intrusions, and ultimately can leave the country if they choose.
So you admit the government uses children as an excuse to violate people's rights, and then try to downplay it by saying that adults can just leave if they don't like it? Interesting. Are you sure you belong in a country that is said to be the land of the free and the home of the brave?
but having a whole section of the Internet to their own allows for the existence of a nice safe place for trade of this stuff, and the desire to "show off" by making new stuff. "New stuff" being further acts.
Which will happen regardless of whether or not the government censors or takes down a few websites. Not only are we not even getting the security we were promised, but it wouldn't matter to me if we were getting it.
I would respectfully argue that pictures distributed after the fact are still harmful to the original victims. Nothing makes it harder to move past some unpleasant event in the past than the constant reminder that it happened.
That's nice and all, but I don't think we should resort to censorship just to make someone feel better.
The problem is that pedophillia involves profiting off and exploiting the children who have been abused by putting them in sexual situations - if not preying on them directly.
No, it does not. You seem to be assuming that all pedophiles look at child pornography or molest children.
With that said, why would you want to kill pedophiles? Not every pedophile is a child molester (nor is a child molester necessarily a pedophile), and not every pedophile even looks at child pornography.
The "I don't like the government monitoring me" part of me objects to this, but the "Find every pedo and kill them slowly" part of me is currently winning out
You're part of the problem. Have fun getting groped at airports.
Business models have nothing to do with free market.
But government-enforced monopolies that impose artificial scarcity and infringe upon real property rights sure do; in fact, they have little to do with the free market.
If you think there are business models (especial in the creative sector) that work without copyright/ip laws then publish them and farm in your nobel price for economics.
I don't need to; business owners are responsible for finding them.
As long as you have nomsuch idea/plan your are just hot air.
This entire comment is just an eyesore.
There is no "hot air" here. The world would remain even without copyright, even if your delusions say otherwise. Even if it were true that copyright encouraged innovation, I'm not the type of coward who sells out everyone's freedoms in exchange for something (whether that be safety or increased innovation). I'm against the TSA, copyrights, patents, free speech zones, and a host of other nonsense that governments do to infringe upon people's freedoms, and frankly, I highly doubt anything you say could change that (especially since you just keep asking me to pointlessly come up with business models for other people, for some strange reason).
Actually, I do. If you want a working business model, you're going to have to find it yourself; this is typically true in a free market environment. I hear some people talk about entitlement when they speak of copyright infringement, but how entitled do you have to be to seriously expect that other people come up with business models for you? That's your job, and if you fail, it's on you.
Good that you admitted it now.
Just like how a minute ago you claimed that 1 + 1 = 3, right? Oh, wait... that didn't happen.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be more accurate to say I think that of all the places to draw your line in the sand this is the silliest.
But you're not even talking about my line to begin with; I don't agree with many of the laws you mentioned.
The law should be consistent, and proportional.
Right, so scrap those other laws.
Even if you disagree with libel, trademark, and copyright, you would probably agree that a prohibition on exchanging pictures of someone being criminally abused against their will is less of an abridgement of free speech than those, and that it would be pretty consistent with our legal system.
I don't agree with that.
So of all the places to just now draw your line in the sand and stand up against 'the man' telling you what you can or can't say... distribution of child porn?
Posting on Slashdot hardly qualifies as standing up against anyone. That said, I did not draw my line just recently, and I can be vocal about multiple issues almost at once.
Yes, allow the government to violate the constitution and people's rights as it pleases; that sounds like a good plan, and it isn't as if that has ever backfired in the past.
Facebook Connect. Twitter @Anywhere.
Just no.
No, a "determined attacker" means anybody who breaks through the mostly illusory security that Tor provides.
I was talking about this case, though. This time government thugs are the attackers. And yes, Tor isn't infallible, but this was mostly a case of incompetent users being incompetent users.
As for paedos, I expect every single law enforcement agency in the world would dearly love to swoop down and arrest these scumbags and I'm happy to see them do it.
You're part of the problem. You seem to be willing to let law enforcement violate people's rights and privacy if they only do it to people you don't like (in this case, the pedophile bogeyman, rather than the terrorist bogeyman). This is what leads to nonsense such as the TSA.
That said, why do you seem so concerned about pedophiles in general? Pedophiles aren't necessarily child molesters, don't necessarily look at child porn, and aren't necessarily attracted solely to children.
I never assumed Tor to be secure and anyone who did and used it to conduct illegal activity is an idiot and deserves everything they get.
As you said, Tor is fallible, but that doesn't make it useless. These people were simply incompetent for the most part.
Many more people were affected than just those who conducted illegal activities.
whist court-backed intelligence gathering on US citizens
It might be backed by a court, but the warrants do not appear to be constitutional (some lack probable cause and fail to specifically describe that which is to be searched).
Freedom is not a stretch. I believe that, in many instances, privacy should be considered a fundamental right. Actually, the 4th amendment does, in a way, describe a right that the NSA violates; they don't have any probable cause to do any of this.
That seems rather odd, given the NSA's actions (even before the drug trafficker nonsense). I think this is more of a case of people pretending they care about individual liberties.
It doesn't give anonymity from a determined attacker and if paedos thought it did then more fool them.
A "determined attacker" in this case simply means a government willing to do shady and manipulative things to achieve their goals. The pedophile bogeyman isn't nearly as scary as you make it out to be (much like the terrorist bogeyman).
In this case, nobody but the employer and the investigators know exactly how the employer's report described the evidence.
He must have told many lies or exaggerated greatly if he somehow made it sound convincing. But lying or exaggerating is simply unnecessary in this case; Law enforcement would overreact no matter what.
And that's the law of the land.
Why do you seem to be assuming that I agree with many of the laws we have in place today?
If you don't understand the concept of subjectivity, simply stop replying.
So making someone feel better, then. You can claim that just about any action or solution is "justice."
You are attempting to conflate attempts to prevent child molesting with all
other "over the top" security measures.
Where did that happen? I have no problem with trying to prevent people from raping others, but if your solution involves violating people's rights or utilizing censorship, I don't want anything to do with it.
Children and animals deserve special protection.
What does having "special protection" entail? Does it involve censorship or people losing their rights just so certain people or animals can have this "special protection"? If so, throw that "special protection" idea right in the garbage.
But those who
prey on children who are unable to protect themselves deserve special attention,
and whether you understand this or not it needs to happen.
The world will not fall apart if you security theater people don't get your way.
Certainly "think of
the children" is misused as justification for intrusions on civil liberties, but the bottom
line is that adults can protect themselves from such intrusions, and ultimately can leave the
country if they choose.
So you admit the government uses children as an excuse to violate people's rights, and then try to downplay it by saying that adults can just leave if they don't like it? Interesting. Are you sure you belong in a country that is said to be the land of the free and the home of the brave?
The world is much bigger than you, and many people DO care
I truly had no idea.
Further,
many of the people who do care are more than happy to grind you
into small pieces under the heel of their boot.
I can see that. Were that not the case, people's liberties wouldn't be continually violated in airports and many other places.
but having a whole section of the Internet to their own allows for the existence of a nice safe place for trade of this stuff, and the desire to "show off" by making new stuff. "New stuff" being further acts.
Which will happen regardless of whether or not the government censors or takes down a few websites. Not only are we not even getting the security we were promised, but it wouldn't matter to me if we were getting it.
I would respectfully argue that pictures distributed after the fact are still harmful to the original victims. Nothing makes it harder to move past some unpleasant event in the past than the constant reminder that it happened.
That's nice and all, but I don't think we should resort to censorship just to make someone feel better.
Who said that pedophilia is normal?
It is caused by traumatic abuse as a child. Not genetic in nature at all
What makes you think that this applies in every case, or even most cases?
The problem is that pedophillia involves profiting off and exploiting the children who have been abused by putting them in sexual situations - if not preying on them directly.
No, it does not. You seem to be assuming that all pedophiles look at child pornography or molest children.
Let me explain something in the event you don't already know:
Yes, let's talk about how you think the bogeymen are going to get us.
Pedophiles NEVER avoid children! That is an outright lie.
Really? Never? I instantly believe you.
I'm not even sure your reply had much to do with mine.
We do have to be somewhat real about this.
Okay.
Lolita City, the pedophile HQ of the internet, has over 15,000 members (and who knows how many 'guests').
I don't care.
With that said, why would you want to kill pedophiles? Not every pedophile is a child molester (nor is a child molester necessarily a pedophile), and not every pedophile even looks at child pornography.
The "I don't like the government monitoring me" part of me objects to this, but the "Find every pedo and kill them slowly" part of me is currently winning out
You're part of the problem. Have fun getting groped at airports.
Business models have nothing to do with free market.
But government-enforced monopolies that impose artificial scarcity and infringe upon real property rights sure do; in fact, they have little to do with the free market.
If you think there are business models (especial in the creative sector) that work without copyright/ip laws then publish them and farm in your nobel price for economics.
I don't need to; business owners are responsible for finding them.
As long as you have nomsuch idea/plan your are just hot air.
This entire comment is just an eyesore.
There is no "hot air" here. The world would remain even without copyright, even if your delusions say otherwise. Even if it were true that copyright encouraged innovation, I'm not the type of coward who sells out everyone's freedoms in exchange for something (whether that be safety or increased innovation). I'm against the TSA, copyrights, patents, free speech zones, and a host of other nonsense that governments do to infringe upon people's freedoms, and frankly, I highly doubt anything you say could change that (especially since you just keep asking me to pointlessly come up with business models for other people, for some strange reason).
I honestly have no idea.
Actually, I do. If you want a working business model, you're going to have to find it yourself; this is typically true in a free market environment. I hear some people talk about entitlement when they speak of copyright infringement, but how entitled do you have to be to seriously expect that other people come up with business models for you? That's your job, and if you fail, it's on you.
Good that you admitted it now.
Just like how a minute ago you claimed that 1 + 1 = 3, right? Oh, wait... that didn't happen.