Alternatively, cops could deal with real (i.e. violent) criminals, and leave the enforcement of sexual morality up to parents, religions (because we know that's where a lot of this slop comes from), and individuals.
This might require a close look at existing cops. Possibly the reason some are going after teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves is that they fear going after violent people (including violent teenagers) but have to arrest so many people per month for political reasons...
Despite the fact that I do not have children, I am very much a part of society, and I don't want to live in a society where fake things are considered real.
Especially given that the consequences are harmful to society.
hat's worse about this particular law is that, as children, my friends and I often drew (admittedly poor) renditions of girls in class whom we liked sans clothes. This is pretty normal for heterosexual boys growing up, and such a law would very definitely have hurt me during those times.
Homosexual and bisexual boys in your school were, no doubt, doing similar things. Ditto for girls of whatever sexual orientation. Other activities would include giving people you fancied notes. With "sexting" being just a modern variation of this kind of behaviour.
Child molestation is so ridiculously rare, that, like terrorism, all the trouble of trying to stop it is far worse than the problem.
Possibly so rare than it can be difficult to see if the attempts to stop it (even if made in "good faith") are in anyway effective. So it's even harder to argue that the "collateral damage" is a worthwhile price for society to pay. Thus the terrorism analogy is a good one.
Kids aren't molested by dirty pictures; they're molested by their family members and the clergy.
But it often isn't PC to address that the vast majority of all child abuse is carried out by relatives of the victim.
I have a kid, and I can say that you are simply wrong. Rational people can make rational conclusions irrelevant of whether they have kids or not. Nut jobs just change their irrational ranting to match their current situation. I have no fear of drawings of Bart plowing Lisa doing any harm to my child.
Indeed the idea of drawings drawings of cartoon characters who are obviously not real people being capable of harming any rational person seems rather an irrational idea.
A law that gets you thrown in jail for drawing pictures of underage people naked?
Including in cases where a person might well be able to consent to have sex with anyone he or she wants to.
That causes me to fear for my child. My son turning thirteen and drawing a picture of that cute girl in his class naked doesn't seem impossible at all.
Or if another student in his class were to send him naked drawings, pictures or videos of themselves.
So is it acceptable for two people to force a 13yo to strip and expose herself to them so long as it is not for their sexual gratification?
How do we know it wasn't for their sexual gratification. That's before even considering ideas like "rape is more about power than sex" or even that there are plenty of people who find power to be sexually arrousing.
For your information, in the 70s there was widely available media which today is considered child pornography, so you are the one who is ill-informed. Centuries? What a joke! Shakespeare's Juliet was 12.
The definition of "adult" is also not a constant. It's only fairly recently that we have had the situation of young men and women who are legally considered "children". In the past poor nutrition had the result that many people's physical development was retarded. In addition the minimum age of "legal adulthood" has been climbing over the last century or so. Go back a few hundred years and there might well be a sizable population of "boys" and "girls" who were considered adult. Possibly go back a bit further and only postpubescent would be considered "adults", regardless of age...
Just like here in Australia, where we said that Bart and Lisa were real people and if you draw/possess/distribute pictures of them naked, you go to jail.
This would be kind of ironic considering some of the comments when the logo for the 2012 London Olympics was first shown.
Fair point, but with Debian you have a longer review period than many other distros. Part of the ethos that makes Debian "Stable" stable is the fact that it has been looked at by several developers, not just one agent. One guy may package the code but several others have to review it before acceptance.
The compare that with the review process for proprietary software. Especially considering that OSS can be reviewed by "outsiders".
In my state, age of consent (with some exceptions) is 16, which is pretty realistic because they would just do it anyway. What isn't realistic is that they can do it... but they can't look at it.
Or nobody else can look at it. Or even nobody can look at pictures/videos of "it", even the people who did "it". A possible practical use might be to get rid of CCTV cameras in places where the minimum age of "porn actors" is higher than the age of consent.
If the landfill environment doesn't promote decay of wood, then it becomes a carbon sink. You still have to worry about the release of methane, but this is some that can be managed (say by burning most of the methane that seeps out).
Or more usefully collecting it and putting it into the already existing methane distribution system so that it can be burned elsewhere as fuel...
Somewhere the public perception of copyright (and other IP rights) went from "a time limited incentive to encourage the creation of novel content" to "content creators have the right to get paid in perpetuity".
The latter would be more "content creators and their children, grandchildren, (great) nieces/nephews, etc..."
a CLASSIFIED document is simply information that someone more powerful then you doesn't want you to see. You can be sure that they don't want you to see if for a reason,
The reason may be as trivial as this being the default in the absence of anything forcing them to do otherwise. As well as all too common situation of "national security" actually equating to protecting some fool who getting rid of would actually improve actual security...
but you can't be certain that it's a good, or possibly even legal, reason.
Typically we only find out about this happening when things are "leaked" anyway.
Yes it will. Acquiring the list or being in possession of the list is also illegal. Basically, with the new law, even if you don't look at it, you're storing child pornography (most likely for later use, you filthy bastard).
As i said, it's enough to TRY to acquire the list to get you in jail for as long as the government wants.
In reality it's more likely to do with such lists not actually being very good at what they claim to be blocking. Combined with the oversized egos of those advocating them. It would actually be news for a such a list to surface which actually was a good attempt to target only child porn...
So, isn't the government agency which compiles and distributes the blacklist guilty of collecting and distributing child pornography, by their same standard that a link to an unlawful site is as bad as hosting the unlawful material yourself?
Presumably those people have to pass an exam in hypocrisy before taking the job. Though this exact issue has previously been brought up in relation to the IWF who do not appear to have any special legal exemption for their activities.
Have you seen these hysterical new posters for the UK police "anti-terrorism" campaign. It's hard to believe that those producing them think they'll have any actual anti-terrorism effect and that it isn't just a deliberate attempt to promote fear and distrust amongst people.
This also happened before 6 terrorist suspects were ordered released by a judge.
Honestly - telling people to inspect their neighbour's rubbish for bomb-making materials? You could not make it up!
It's possible that "Wacky Jackie" might actually believe some of her own nonsense. Whilst a movie about a government making up daft conspiracy theories about imagined (Islamic) terrorists whilst being unable to handle real (Irish/Christian) terrorists would be a comedy it just isn't funny at all.
But none of these issues were mentioned during the search. The search protocol names "distribution of porn" (AFAIK not a crime) as the reason. It's fairly obvious that the reason for the search are the leaked filter lists of various countries. The home of a German blogger linking to the lists on WikiLeaks has already been searched. So has the home of a person maintaining a website linking to the blog post.
I wonder if they would have taken anything like this level of action in a case involving a spammer, scammer or botnet operator. Especially if it involved something in another country...
Those people are all too busy protecting IP and going after nasty pirates now.
Don't forget that they are also too busy chasing unlikely conspiracy theories about Islamic Terrorists. In spite of the fact that complex conspiracies (especially those operating internationally) appear to be far more likely to involve fraud than anything else...
If a bacteria that is resistant to heat or antibiotics was in a high UV environment, there is nothing that requires, or even suggests, that it would lose its previous resistance as part of gaining a UV resistance. I'm not even sure where you'd get that idea?
Without either heat or antibiotics being present a mutation which disables these does not negativly impact the survival odds of of the bacterium in question. Indeed if these are somehow metabolically "expensive" then getting rid of them is likely to be a plus.
On the other hand, if all guns are outlawed the police could just go around popping anyone with a firearm. No need to ask them if they have permit, just shoot them on sight:)
If guns were outlawed then how would the police be able to shoot anyone?
From my perspective there's still no justice in this case. If you or I overstep the bounds of what's legal, we go to jail and/or get fined.
Often sanctions are applied to an individual at the time their are accused. e.g. bail conditions or even being held in custody before/during a trial. Similar issues also apply to "corporate people" breaking the law.
When a government agency oversteps their bounds,
Or an individual such as a police officer
they just get told, "don't do that again". There needs to be some serious negative reinforcement there to prevent creative interpretations or sheer disregard of the law by those in power.
If anything more serious negative consequences since these are by definition "high" crimes.
In my opinion, the best solution is to strongly throttle large bandwidth usages (P2P, FTP and NNTP streams, etc) during the periods of near-capacity, and automatically relax the filtering during off hours. A simple email or letter to your subscribers to announce the change, and everybody will be happy. As a bonus, the notification of the changes will help to encourage your subscribers not to attempt to circumvent your filters, especially given that it's so easy for any modern downloading client to schedule for off-peak hours.
The latter could have the effect of making "peak times" somewhat variable though.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternatively, cops could deal with real (i.e. violent) criminals, and leave the enforcement of sexual morality up to parents, religions (because we know that's where a lot of this slop comes from), and individuals.
This might require a close look at existing cops. Possibly the reason some are going after teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves is that they fear going after violent people (including violent teenagers) but have to arrest so many people per month for political reasons...
Despite the fact that I do not have children, I am very much a part of society, and I don't want to live in a society where fake things are considered real.
Especially given that the consequences are harmful to society.
hat's worse about this particular law is that, as children, my friends and I often drew (admittedly poor) renditions of girls in class whom we liked sans clothes. This is pretty normal for heterosexual boys growing up, and such a law would very definitely have hurt me during those times.
Homosexual and bisexual boys in your school were, no doubt, doing similar things. Ditto for girls of whatever sexual orientation. Other activities would include giving people you fancied notes. With "sexting" being just a modern variation of this kind of behaviour.
Child molestation is so ridiculously rare, that, like terrorism, all the trouble of trying to stop it is far worse than the problem.
Possibly so rare than it can be difficult to see if the attempts to stop it (even if made in "good faith") are in anyway effective. So it's even harder to argue that the "collateral damage" is a worthwhile price for society to pay. Thus the terrorism analogy is a good one.
Kids aren't molested by dirty pictures; they're molested by their family members and the clergy.
But it often isn't PC to address that the vast majority of all child abuse is carried out by relatives of the victim.
I have a kid, and I can say that you are simply wrong. Rational people can make rational conclusions irrelevant of whether they have kids or not. Nut jobs just change their irrational ranting to match their current situation. I have no fear of drawings of Bart plowing Lisa doing any harm to my child.
Indeed the idea of drawings drawings of cartoon characters who are obviously not real people being capable of harming any rational person seems rather an irrational idea.
A law that gets you thrown in jail for drawing pictures of underage people naked?
Including in cases where a person might well be able to consent to have sex with anyone he or she wants to.
That causes me to fear for my child. My son turning thirteen and drawing a picture of that cute girl in his class naked doesn't seem impossible at all.
Or if another student in his class were to send him naked drawings, pictures or videos of themselves.
So is it acceptable for two people to force a 13yo to strip and expose herself to them so long as it is not for their sexual gratification?
How do we know it wasn't for their sexual gratification. That's before even considering ideas like "rape is more about power than sex" or even that there are plenty of people who find power to be sexually arrousing.
For your information, in the 70s there was widely available media which today is considered child pornography, so you are the one who is ill-informed. Centuries? What a joke! Shakespeare's Juliet was 12.
The definition of "adult" is also not a constant. It's only fairly recently that we have had the situation of young men and women who are legally considered "children". In the past poor nutrition had the result that many people's physical development was retarded. In addition the minimum age of "legal adulthood" has been climbing over the last century or so. Go back a few hundred years and there might well be a sizable population of "boys" and "girls" who were considered adult. Possibly go back a bit further and only postpubescent would be considered "adults", regardless of age...
Just like here in Australia, where we said that Bart and Lisa were real people and if you draw/possess/distribute pictures of them naked, you go to jail.
This would be kind of ironic considering some of the comments when the logo for the 2012 London Olympics was first shown.
Fair point, but with Debian you have a longer review period than many other distros. Part of the ethos that makes Debian "Stable" stable is the fact that it has been looked at by several developers, not just one agent. One guy may package the code but several others have to review it before acceptance.
The compare that with the review process for proprietary software. Especially considering that OSS can be reviewed by "outsiders".
In my state, age of consent (with some exceptions) is 16, which is pretty realistic because they would just do it anyway. What isn't realistic is that they can do it... but they can't look at it.
Or nobody else can look at it. Or even nobody can look at pictures/videos of "it", even the people who did "it".
A possible practical use might be to get rid of CCTV cameras in places where the minimum age of "porn actors" is higher than the age of consent.
If the landfill environment doesn't promote decay of wood, then it becomes a carbon sink. You still have to worry about the release of methane, but this is some that can be managed (say by burning most of the methane that seeps out).
Or more usefully collecting it and putting it into the already existing methane distribution system so that it can be burned elsewhere as fuel...
Somewhere the public perception of copyright (and other IP rights) went from "a time limited incentive to encourage the creation of novel content" to "content creators have the right to get paid in perpetuity".
..."
The latter would be more "content creators and their children, grandchildren, (great) nieces/nephews, etc
You mean you don't have a photocopy of the mayor's license plate pasted over your own? I thought everyone already did that...
:)
No some people use one belonging to one of the cars owned by the CEO of the camera company
a CLASSIFIED document is simply information that someone more powerful then you doesn't want you to see. You can be sure that they don't want you to see if for a reason,
The reason may be as trivial as this being the default in the absence of anything forcing them to do otherwise. As well as all too common situation of "national security" actually equating to protecting some fool who getting rid of would actually improve actual security...
but you can't be certain that it's a good, or possibly even legal, reason.
Typically we only find out about this happening when things are "leaked" anyway.
Yes it will. Acquiring the list or being in possession of the list is also illegal. Basically, with the new law, even if you don't look at it, you're storing child pornography (most likely for later use, you filthy bastard).
As i said, it's enough to TRY to acquire the list to get you in jail for as long as the government wants.
In reality it's more likely to do with such lists not actually being very good at what they claim to be blocking. Combined with the oversized egos of those advocating them.
It would actually be news for a such a list to surface which actually was a good attempt to target only child porn...
So, isn't the government agency which compiles and distributes the blacklist guilty of collecting and distributing child pornography, by their same standard that a link to an unlawful site is as bad as hosting the unlawful material yourself?
Presumably those people have to pass an exam in hypocrisy before taking the job. Though this exact issue has previously been brought up in relation to the IWF who do not appear to have any special legal exemption for their activities.
Have you seen these hysterical new posters for the UK police "anti-terrorism" campaign. It's hard to believe that those producing them think they'll have any actual anti-terrorism effect and that it isn't just a deliberate attempt to promote fear and distrust amongst people.
This also happened before 6 terrorist suspects were ordered released by a judge.
Honestly - telling people to inspect their neighbour's rubbish for bomb-making materials? You could not make it up!
It's possible that "Wacky Jackie" might actually believe some of her own nonsense.
Whilst a movie about a government making up daft conspiracy theories about imagined (Islamic) terrorists whilst being unable to handle real (Irish/Christian) terrorists would be a comedy it just isn't funny at all.
But none of these issues were mentioned during the search. The search protocol names "distribution of porn" (AFAIK not a crime) as the reason. It's fairly obvious that the reason for the search are the leaked filter lists of various countries. The home of a German blogger linking to the lists on WikiLeaks has already been searched. So has the home of a person maintaining a website linking to the blog post.
I wonder if they would have taken anything like this level of action in a case involving a spammer, scammer or botnet operator. Especially if it involved something in another country...
It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
At least not in the King James version.
This is a translation of "The Bible". There's also the complication that Genesis contains two creation stories edited together.
Those people are all too busy protecting IP and going after nasty pirates now.
Don't forget that they are also too busy chasing unlikely conspiracy theories about Islamic Terrorists. In spite of the fact that complex conspiracies (especially those operating internationally) appear to be far more likely to involve fraud than anything else...
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-- John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton
It also tends to attract the already corrupt and easily corruptable.
Conroy and ISPs implementing the blacklist confirm that this is a fake: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520929.htm
:)
Would they say anything else? Also Conroy appears to be a "career politician" so it's probably wise to take anything he says with a few kg of salt
If you are dishonest you will get irate customers who will bitch to you, your manager and worse for the store...their friends.
As well as "the media". Which can now include all sorts of random blogs.
If a bacteria that is resistant to heat or antibiotics was in a high UV environment, there is nothing that requires, or even suggests, that it would lose its previous resistance as part of gaining a UV resistance. I'm not even sure where you'd get that idea?
Without either heat or antibiotics being present a mutation which disables these does not negativly impact the survival odds of of the bacterium in question. Indeed if these are somehow metabolically "expensive" then getting rid of them is likely to be a plus.
On the other hand, if all guns are outlawed the police could just go around popping anyone with a firearm. No need to ask them if they have permit, just shoot them on sight :)
If guns were outlawed then how would the police be able to shoot anyone?
From my perspective there's still no justice in this case. If you or I overstep the bounds of what's legal, we go to jail and/or get fined.
Often sanctions are applied to an individual at the time their are accused. e.g. bail conditions or even being held in custody before/during a trial. Similar issues also apply to "corporate people" breaking the law.
When a government agency oversteps their bounds,
Or an individual such as a police officer
they just get told, "don't do that again". There needs to be some serious negative reinforcement there to prevent creative interpretations or sheer disregard of the law by those in power.
If anything more serious negative consequences since these are by definition "high" crimes.
In my opinion, the best solution is to strongly throttle large bandwidth usages (P2P, FTP and NNTP streams, etc) during the periods of near-capacity, and automatically relax the filtering during off hours. A simple email or letter to your subscribers to announce the change, and everybody will be happy. As a bonus, the notification of the changes will help to encourage your subscribers not to attempt to circumvent your filters, especially given that it's so easy for any modern downloading client to schedule for off-peak hours.
The latter could have the effect of making "peak times" somewhat variable though.