We might as well punish a person for thinking about sex with a child if we are to ban mere drawings or generated child porn
Strangely, I don't have a problem with that. I don't have any big convincing moral or legal argument here, I'd just kind of like to cattle prod them in the gonads. Repeatedly.
Er, if Britney was worried about [having candid photos from relaxing on the beach posted online], don't you think she'd have left showbusiness long ago
I know, plus anything that you do in a public place has really to be considered public. It's not the same as snapping her with a tele lens through a window.
A parolee does not have the full rights of a citizen of the USA
Exactly. You're allowed out on the condition that you are thought unlikely to re-offend. Now, depending on the circumstances, the parole officer in this case might genuinely have believed that the public were in danger. This isn't a case that you can comment on without knowing a lot more details.
I know most of the big and medium players in adult sites. The vast majority are ethical, resonable people who hate spammers and mouse traps just like anyone else
I hear you. I also honestly believe that if we're truly interested in protecting our tender kiddies from the horrors of human sexuality, we should encouraged, perhaps even financially support ethical soft core porn sites.
If you think that this is a troll, compare soft core porn sites with the erotic magazines that kids have been finding/stealing/swapping for years, and contrast with the hard core stuff that they can find within seconds of downloading any P2P client.
Franky, I'd prefer my kids to be satisfying their curiousity on a soft core site. If you can think of a way of stopping them finding the nasty stuff on P2P, I'd like to hear it.
age verification isn't designed to be foolproof, only provide an easy way to stop most people who might be interested
All that I can see it doing is punishing the law abiding soft core porn sites, and driving kids to P2P services like Morpheus where it's trivial to find hard core porn, without even a record of your access on a server.
This legislation is window dressing. Kids are going to find porn if they go looking for it, or even if they don't. Better to allocate money to educate parents about what their kiddies are looking at, and how to deal with it.
Everyone else in the real world has to use real age verification systems (be is visual "hmm, he looks like a 11 year old" or "ID please") when it comes to things that can be deemed "harmful" to minors, so why shouldn't online systems?
Because it doesn't work. Your own point is that real people can form an opinion of your age, ask to see identification, and then make a further decision based on that.
That doesn't apply online. There's no face to check, only a string of numbers. All it proves is that you have access to a valid credit card number. It doesn't have to be yours, it doesn't even have to be from a real credit card, it just has to conform to the numbering system. It's popularist window dressing that doesn't address the real problem, and every piece of pointless unenforcable legislation weakens the whole legal system.
Note that I'm not proposing an alternative solution, because I don't think that there is one. When I was a kid, I was lucky to find a discarded soft core porn magazine in the woods. Oh, innocent days. Grab a copy of Morpheus, select "videos" and search for (e.g.) "dog" (an innocent topic for an innocent doggie loving kiddie). Prepare to be pretty fucking horrified by what your tender young sprouts will find, even with the default filtering turned on.
Here's the thing. Your kids will find porn online. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, but all you'll do is make is slightly harder to get soft core porn from law abiding servers. Net effect? You'll probably just encourage curious kids to go looking for the hard core fuckfests on P2P systems.
No minors are being harmed or exploited in [virtual kiddie porn]
I have to reluctantly agree with you, but on the other hand, we're not good at keeping our noses out of victimless crimes. Remind me, in how many States is fellatio between consenting adults still illegal? And who am I hurting by growing pot for my own use? Tricky call.
This AC has posted this urban myth far too many times in this thread.
Debunk it with a reference then. If you don't care enough about us to do that, why should we care about your personal opinion?
Re:Let me get this straight...
on
Raising the Kursk
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Little boy, people won't reply to your 'argument' if you post AC
Wierd, I gave him a lot more credence than you, because he actually said something rather than just spitting unreferenced bile. If you really feel such contempt for/. that you can't even be bothered posting one reference for all of your rantings, then why do you even bother infesting this site? You're just adding noise.
Looge, if you provided some references for your rantings, we might take you more seriously. If you need help understanding HTML, please let us know. We'll type slowly and use short words.
Let's get it straight that Poland cracked Enigma and built working devices from scratch, long before Turing automated the the decryption process at Bletchley, or Matthew McConaughey recovered the secret Death Star plans from R2-D571.
I know it's not the same as the entire recovered machine that was captured and used to defeat the natzi germany forces
Lest we rewrite history even more, Poland cracked Enigma and gave a working machine (built from scratch) to the UK well before an actual German machine was recovered. The recovered machine just confirmed how amazingly accurate the Polish device was.
could very well be that wiring a 3.5mm jack from your CD walkman to your line in might be viewed as "circumvention of a copyright protection device" under the DMCA, even though there's an analogue step in the middle
D - Digital
Yes, yes, very insightful, but go and read the DMCA. The "Digital" is a misnomer, it covers analog as well.
There is a specific exemption for analog recordings only for digital broadcasts and only until a digital broadcast standard is agreed, and if there is a "perceptible visual or aural degradation of the digital signal"
There is no provision that I can find for allowing you to make analog copies of a protected digital format CD. Feel free to find this yourself, or convince me that the RIAA would be happy with me making a near-perfect digital-analog-digital copy through my fat silver cables then distributing perfect digital copies of that all over the place.
Hear this clearly: the intention of the DMCA is to stop all fair use copying. No? Commercial piracy was already illegal. So who was the DMCA aimed at?
On one final note, for those wondering about why anyone would make chain mail, my friend used to sell pieces that took 5 or 6 hours to make for $100-200. That's a pretty good supplemental income for doing something you enjoy.
To wander even further OT, Sussen.com now does rivetted mail byrnies for $500, which undercuts anything that someone paying US/European cost of living can afford to make, even for a hobby.
You jest, but isn't the "fair use" provision on these CD's either:
Jump through hoops to prove that you should be allowed to try and download a crippleware copy-controlled version; or
Create an analogue tape, just like grandpappy used to do it.
Mind you, I could be mistaken. This article doesn't address what they think "fair use" is, and it could very well be that wiring a 3.5mm jack from your CD walkman to your line in might be viewed as "circumvention of a copyright protection device" under the DMCA, even though there's an analogue step in the middle. It sounds risible, but have you read the DMCA recently?
It's not whether it works, it's who it works on
on
Biometrics in Airports
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
the best biometric system in the world wouldn't have stopped the WTC attack - the hijackers were passengers with tickets and many used their real names anyway so
Which leads to a good point. How "suspect" do I have to be before you restrict my ability to move around and basically live a normal life?
If you stick to putting only known foreign terrorists in the database, fair enough. If you put known escaped US felons and bail jumpers in as well, again fair enough.
But the September the 11th terrorists were only suspects; we knew they were here, but they were here legally and openly, so we had nothing to charge them with. These are the people we want to stop, so we have to put them in and, what? Stop them flying? Search and question them? OK, lives are at stake, let's do that. it sucks, but it's necessary.
So, what's the criteria for putting a US citizen in? You don't have enough evidence to charge me. Am I an acknowledged activist, spouting anti-American slogans and calling for the end of US involvement in the Holy Land (pesky old 1st Amendment)? Or do I just have an uncle in Afghanistan who likes to send me encrypted mail? What are the criteria?
Do you stop me flying altogether, or do you just search me every time? If I'm not trusted on a plane, am I trusted with a gun? With access to explosives, or the materials to make them? Do you stop me using encryption? Or do you just watch me closely? Do I even know that I'm in the database at effectively wearing a big "suspicious" label because of my ethnicity, religion, family or political leanings?
I'm not against this technology (assuming we can get it to work), but I am very concerned that there be a clear, open procedure for who goes in the database. Specifically, I want to know:
Who can put people in the database?
Who can take people out of the database?
Am I in the database?
How did I get in?
How do I get out?
How do I prove my innocence and ensure that I don't get put back in this or similar databases again?
Apologies for the redundancy, but The Register has an article today that says that "to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport"
I am a bit confused as to why you people are so hesitant to accept facial recognition cameras in public
Uh, how about because they don't work?
Thanks to modern technology and tremendous advances in processing power, we now have a device that can accurately (four nines) identify a potential criminal from a database containing MILLIONS of entrys
Facial recognition cameras will take an additional burden off of our already overworked police departments, while at the same time, making the streets safer for our children
Oh, OK, if it's for the children, then who cares if it works or not?
Frankly, I'm happy to be surveilled, and to give my government my face/DNA/fingerprints/nail clippings/ear wax or anything else that they need, if they have a system that works. However, I do not want a system that picks one person out of three and screams "Terrorist!".
If the system were 99.99% accurate and it indicated a match
But it isn't anywhere near that. Did you even read the article? If we put this in, either a lot of innocent people are going to spend some time proving their innocence, or (more likely) after we return to business as usual, the minimum wage security guys will ignore the constant false positives, in the same way that they ignore the X-ray machine today.
Re:eh... actually I'm glad about these viruses
on
Nimda To Strike Again
·
· Score: 1
There shouldn't be security holes that allow these viruses to exist in the first place. Don't blame the kids who wrote this, but rather blame microsoft
Yes, and the chiselling bastards who failed to install a crocodile infested moat when they built my house should get the blame if I'm burgled, right? Or maybe it's my fault. I mean, I get enough people knocking on my door offering to sell me high security doors and windows, and I never bother taking them up on it. It must be my fault.
Let's not blame the burglars. Let's never blame the burglars. That's society's fault.
I already made this as a reply to comment, but I'm irked about this enough that I want to post it to the main thread in hopes that people read it
And I find it funny enough, in a naive kind of way, that I'll respond again.
I bet you have security guards, fences and cameras to protect your buildings from 14 year old kids. Why don't you have a secure firewall to protect your servers?
Most companies have geriatric minimum wage security guards who can provide only the most token form of protection.
Most companies do run firewalls that provide a great deal more electronic protection than their security guards provide physical protection.
In neither case are you protected from malicious or idiotic insiders who decide to (literally or figuratively) go around spooning ice cream into all the hard drives.
My own company was hit and the servers switched off because of the numbers of induhviduals who got hammered with Nimda (notably sales weasels with laptops bringing it in in the first place). The firewall was happily stopping intrusions from outside, but no firewall is proof against a sufficiently determined idiot.
Jeez, if you're her friend, tell her to get her radiation scarred sagging skin out of the damn sun. That woman is turning herself into jerky.
Also, last I heard, friends don't post candid photo's on the web for every cheez-o-news site and pathetic geek (like me) to leech then lech over. Give the girl a break, huh?
Bullshit. It wouldn't cost somebody $25000 to clean up a virus if they had Bill fuckin' Gates doing it.
My, what a well informed opinion. As a counter example, my multinational employer had to take the entire corporate network offline for a full day to clean Nimda off. That's a day of tens of thousands of people doing nothing, not some Lame-O-Whiz web site going down.
I bet you have security guards, fences and cameras to protect your buildings from 14 year old kids. Why don't you have a secure firewall to protect your servers?
My company, like most, has a bunch of minimum wage geriatric rentacops, armed with torches and haliotosis. About three months ago on a Saturday, one of the guards let in a guy who claimed to be from another of our offices and who urgently needed to collect some data. He took him around the building, opened doors for him, then left him in a lab. When he came back half an hour later, the guy was gone, as so was about $5,000 of equipment containing sensitive development data.
My company, like most, has firewalls and filtering to protect us from outside intrusion. Last week, some sales weasel with a laptop running 19 month old McAfee definitions got Nimda'd while surfing at home, then trojaned the bastard right into our system. The thing kept propagating so fast that we had to turn the servers off, and lost a full day of productivity across the entire multinational.
Shit happens, and heads have rolled, but the cause of both of these incidents wasn't lax security, it was that one guy decided to steal a bunch of stuff, and another guy decided to wreck our systems.
When your house gets broken into, do you think "What a bastard!", or do you think "Gee, I should really have bought better locks."
Slashdot Mirror
Strangely, I don't have a problem with that. I don't have any big convincing moral or legal argument here, I'd just kind of like to cattle prod them in the gonads. Repeatedly.
I know, plus anything that you do in a public place has really to be considered public. It's not the same as snapping her with a tele lens through a window.
I'm just an old fashioned guy, I suppose. ;)
Exactly. You're allowed out on the condition that you are thought unlikely to re-offend. Now, depending on the circumstances, the parole officer in this case might genuinely have believed that the public were in danger. This isn't a case that you can comment on without knowing a lot more details.
I hear you. I also honestly believe that if we're truly interested in protecting our tender kiddies from the horrors of human sexuality, we should encouraged, perhaps even financially support ethical soft core porn sites.
If you think that this is a troll, compare soft core porn sites with the erotic magazines that kids have been finding/stealing/swapping for years, and contrast with the hard core stuff that they can find within seconds of downloading any P2P client.
Franky, I'd prefer my kids to be satisfying their curiousity on a soft core site. If you can think of a way of stopping them finding the nasty stuff on P2P, I'd like to hear it.
All that I can see it doing is punishing the law abiding soft core porn sites, and driving kids to P2P services like Morpheus where it's trivial to find hard core porn, without even a record of your access on a server.
This legislation is window dressing. Kids are going to find porn if they go looking for it, or even if they don't. Better to allocate money to educate parents about what their kiddies are looking at, and how to deal with it.
Because it doesn't work. Your own point is that real people can form an opinion of your age, ask to see identification, and then make a further decision based on that.
That doesn't apply online. There's no face to check, only a string of numbers. All it proves is that you have access to a valid credit card number. It doesn't have to be yours, it doesn't even have to be from a real credit card, it just has to conform to the numbering system. It's popularist window dressing that doesn't address the real problem, and every piece of pointless unenforcable legislation weakens the whole legal system.
Note that I'm not proposing an alternative solution, because I don't think that there is one. When I was a kid, I was lucky to find a discarded soft core porn magazine in the woods. Oh, innocent days. Grab a copy of Morpheus, select "videos" and search for (e.g.) "dog" (an innocent topic for an innocent doggie loving kiddie). Prepare to be pretty fucking horrified by what your tender young sprouts will find, even with the default filtering turned on.
Here's the thing. Your kids will find porn online. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, but all you'll do is make is slightly harder to get soft core porn from law abiding servers. Net effect? You'll probably just encourage curious kids to go looking for the hard core fuckfests on P2P systems.
I have to reluctantly agree with you, but on the other hand, we're not good at keeping our noses out of victimless crimes. Remind me, in how many States is fellatio between consenting adults still illegal? And who am I hurting by growing pot for my own use? Tricky call.
Looge, do you have any friends? Any at all?
Debunk it with a reference then. If you don't care enough about us to do that, why should we care about your personal opinion?
Wierd, I gave him a lot more credence than you, because he actually said something rather than just spitting unreferenced bile. If you really feel such contempt for /. that you can't even be bothered posting one reference for all of your rantings, then why do you even bother infesting this site? You're just adding noise.
Looge, if you provided some references for your rantings, we might take you more seriously. If you need help understanding HTML, please let us know. We'll type slowly and use short words.
Oh no! I am writhing in the crushing grip of your logic! Woe is me!
Seriously though, if I've got this wrong, be specific about what, and provide some references.
Let's get it straight that Poland cracked Enigma and built working devices from scratch, long before Turing automated the the decryption process at Bletchley, or Matthew McConaughey recovered the secret Death Star plans from R2-D571.
Lest we rewrite history even more, Poland cracked Enigma and gave a working machine (built from scratch) to the UK well before an actual German machine was recovered. The recovered machine just confirmed how amazingly accurate the Polish device was.
- could very well be that wiring a 3.5mm jack from your CD walkman to your line in might be viewed as "circumvention of a copyright protection device" under the DMCA, even though there's an analogue step in the middle
D - DigitalYes, yes, very insightful, but go and read the DMCA. The "Digital" is a misnomer, it covers analog as well.
There is a specific exemption for analog recordings only for digital broadcasts and only until a digital broadcast standard is agreed, and if there is a "perceptible visual or aural degradation of the digital signal"
There is no provision that I can find for allowing you to make analog copies of a protected digital format CD. Feel free to find this yourself, or convince me that the RIAA would be happy with me making a near-perfect digital-analog-digital copy through my fat silver cables then distributing perfect digital copies of that all over the place.
Hear this clearly: the intention of the DMCA is to stop all fair use copying. No? Commercial piracy was already illegal. So who was the DMCA aimed at?
To wander even further OT, Sussen.com now does rivetted mail byrnies for $500, which undercuts anything that someone paying US/European cost of living can afford to make, even for a hobby.
You jest, but isn't the "fair use" provision on these CD's either:
Mind you, I could be mistaken. This article doesn't address what they think "fair use" is, and it could very well be that wiring a 3.5mm jack from your CD walkman to your line in might be viewed as "circumvention of a copyright protection device" under the DMCA, even though there's an analogue step in the middle. It sounds risible, but have you read the DMCA recently?
Which leads to a good point. How "suspect" do I have to be before you restrict my ability to move around and basically live a normal life?
If you stick to putting only known foreign terrorists in the database, fair enough. If you put known escaped US felons and bail jumpers in as well, again fair enough.
But the September the 11th terrorists were only suspects; we knew they were here, but they were here legally and openly, so we had nothing to charge them with. These are the people we want to stop, so we have to put them in and, what? Stop them flying? Search and question them? OK, lives are at stake, let's do that. it sucks, but it's necessary.
So, what's the criteria for putting a US citizen in? You don't have enough evidence to charge me. Am I an acknowledged activist, spouting anti-American slogans and calling for the end of US involvement in the Holy Land (pesky old 1st Amendment)? Or do I just have an uncle in Afghanistan who likes to send me encrypted mail? What are the criteria?
Do you stop me flying altogether, or do you just search me every time? If I'm not trusted on a plane, am I trusted with a gun? With access to explosives, or the materials to make them? Do you stop me using encryption? Or do you just watch me closely? Do I even know that I'm in the database at effectively wearing a big "suspicious" label because of my ethnicity, religion, family or political leanings?
I'm not against this technology (assuming we can get it to work), but I am very concerned that there be a clear, open procedure for who goes in the database. Specifically, I want to know:
Apologies for the redundancy, but The Register has an article today that says that "to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport"
Uh, how about because they don't work?
Oh dear. "to detect 90 per cent of terrorists we'd need to raise an alarm for one in every three people passing through the airport. It's absolutely inconceivable that any security system could be built around this kind of performance," .
Oh, OK, if it's for the children, then who cares if it works or not?
Frankly, I'm happy to be surveilled, and to give my government my face/DNA/fingerprints/nail clippings/ear wax or anything else that they need, if they have a system that works. However, I do not want a system that picks one person out of three and screams "Terrorist!".
But it isn't anywhere near that. Did you even read the article? If we put this in, either a lot of innocent people are going to spend some time proving their innocence, or (more likely) after we return to business as usual, the minimum wage security guys will ignore the constant false positives, in the same way that they ignore the X-ray machine today.
Yes, and the chiselling bastards who failed to install a crocodile infested moat when they built my house should get the blame if I'm burgled, right? Or maybe it's my fault. I mean, I get enough people knocking on my door offering to sell me high security doors and windows, and I never bother taking them up on it. It must be my fault.
Let's not blame the burglars. Let's never blame the burglars. That's society's fault.
And I find it funny enough, in a naive kind of way, that I'll respond again.
Most companies have geriatric minimum wage security guards who can provide only the most token form of protection.
Most companies do run firewalls that provide a great deal more electronic protection than their security guards provide physical protection.
In neither case are you protected from malicious or idiotic insiders who decide to (literally or figuratively) go around spooning ice cream into all the hard drives.
My own company was hit and the servers switched off because of the numbers of induhviduals who got hammered with Nimda (notably sales weasels with laptops bringing it in in the first place). The firewall was happily stopping intrusions from outside, but no firewall is proof against a sufficiently determined idiot.
Jeez, if you're her friend, tell her to get her radiation scarred sagging skin out of the damn sun. That woman is turning herself into jerky.
Also, last I heard, friends don't post candid photo's on the web for every cheez-o-news site and pathetic geek (like me) to leech then lech over. Give the girl a break, huh?
My, what a well informed opinion. As a counter example, my multinational employer had to take the entire corporate network offline for a full day to clean Nimda off. That's a day of tens of thousands of people doing nothing, not some Lame-O-Whiz web site going down.
My company, like most, has a bunch of minimum wage geriatric rentacops, armed with torches and haliotosis. About three months ago on a Saturday, one of the guards let in a guy who claimed to be from another of our offices and who urgently needed to collect some data. He took him around the building, opened doors for him, then left him in a lab. When he came back half an hour later, the guy was gone, as so was about $5,000 of equipment containing sensitive development data.
My company, like most, has firewalls and filtering to protect us from outside intrusion. Last week, some sales weasel with a laptop running 19 month old McAfee definitions got Nimda'd while surfing at home, then trojaned the bastard right into our system. The thing kept propagating so fast that we had to turn the servers off, and lost a full day of productivity across the entire multinational.
Shit happens, and heads have rolled, but the cause of both of these incidents wasn't lax security, it was that one guy decided to steal a bunch of stuff, and another guy decided to wreck our systems.
When your house gets broken into, do you think "What a bastard!", or do you think "Gee, I should really have bought better locks."