He was saying there was no crime occuring by receiving/possessing them.
And he's wrong. Obviously not in the case of people who didn't know stuff was there as per the original article, but he wasn't talking about that specific case, he was speaking generally, and collectors of images do cause new images to be made. Or do you think they grow on fileservers?
We already argued your second point, didn't we? Do keep up.
I'm an idiot? You don't even know to capitalise the first letter in a sentence!
MS have released broken patches in the past you moron. Hence big businesses doesn't usually let admins apply patches to production machines without regression testing, hence my question. That's one reason why it takes so long for patches to get applied.
Also, I wasn't comparing any OS with any other, so leave out the 'Linux is just as bad' rant. How old are you?!
I can't think of any reason why someone shouldn't be doing the same to their Windows network, except for arcane Slashbot conspiracy theories or just plain needing to hate Microsoft for something, anything.
Did you merrily click past the EULA that said if it destroyed your system and data it wasn't MS's fault or responsibility? Did you install on one box and then do a complete round of System Test, or did you just blindly trust MS?
Oh, and I nearly forgot: millions of broadband users that don't know anything about patching and don't use firewalling software cos they are just Joe and Jane User - they prolly account for a good proportion.
I honestly didn't mean that to sound MS bashing - that's just my analysis. It's no excuse, but lots of companies do employ unskilled-ish people to admin their Windows machines, cos they can do the basics.
Anyway: Linux had nine? Bollocks. I'm sure various packages associated with Open Source had vulnerabilities, but the kernel? No. Prove me wrong.
Well, that's still my point: you knew you'd got stuff there, you weren't surprised by its presence due to having pressed a 'wrong button' that somehow did this to you.
Have you met many people who are MS sysadmins? A good proportion of those that I have met are Joe User types who have knowledge of how to set up, auto-reboot and backup machines, and not a lot more.
Windows is easier to pick up, but just as hard, possibly harder, to maintain than *nix. So you get less-trained or less-capable or whatever people who are employed doing this, who look fine on the day-to-day, but who are damn-near useless at the harder stuff like security - which should, of course, be the day to day.
Combine that with the sheer number of sever and critical patches MS expects you to apply, each of which must go through regression testing before deployment, and you can see why sticking the ol' head in the sand looks appealing...
I liked: "We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux,"
I had no idea so many/.ers would be bothered to phone that free number and leave details...;-)
I haven't seen anyone argue against imprisoning someone who pays to have an assault or any other crime commited.
How do think kp pictures come to be? The earlier poster was suggesting that kp images might be better legal... doesn't that imply paying/rewarding someone for assault?
Collectors of images cause images to be made. It's that simple.
Yes, but do pay attention: we were talking about dling stuff without the user's knowledge or intervention.
If you set a spider to dl shitloads of stuff, then you are aware - it's not a 'wrong button' in the sense we were discussing earlier. Plus, if you randomly dl that much stuff and don't look at it, you're a very strange individual indeed.
So either you've seen where your logic has gone wrong or you in fact believe that viewing certain images should be in and of itself a crime. You obviously believe the second.
Don't be an arse.
People don't pay people to do bank robberies so they can look at the pictures. They do pay people to assault children so they can look at the pictures. Can you see the difference?
Or, to re-use your terrific debating technique above: Have you realised you're a dick yet, or have you changed your mind?
I (and the U.S. FHWA) do not accept the general notion that you are less likely to get in an auto accident if you drive at a lower speed.
There're two lines of logic that produce this: first is the 'one car doing 40, everyone else doing 80' line.
The second is the brilliant observation that got punted around a few years ago that the maximum permitted speed in a state does not correlate to the number of fatalities in that state. Well not compared to the huge differences in roads, light, weather etc, no! It's daft to compare Utah with New York state.
I would suggest that the number of accidents is in proportion to both the mean speed on the road and the observed mean speed differential of the traffic.
None of these observations detract from the suggestion that reducing everyone's speed reduces the number and seriousness of accidents.
Sadly, it's almost time to go home here, so this is it for the day.
Now I'm confused... are you arguing that legalisation would improve the situation, make it worse, or make no difference?
I think it would be worse, as it's a compulsive interest, legal or no, so take-up would increase (but still only by those interested), resulting in more children hurt.
Actually, alcoholics and drug users are more likely to show compulsive behaviour when their chosen drug is illegal.
Bollocks, say I. No stats here, just personal experience. I'm ex-resident of Amsterdam, now resident back in the UK. I have observed the drug scene in both situations with very similar people. I firmly think that people who want to take drugs simply want as much as they want and that legality is entirely incidental.
By criminalising drugs, the money goes to the crims, who have a vested interest in getting users on harder stuff. That's where the increased usage comes from.
Difficult, surely? Harvest porn in general, sure (nearby words), but if someone could write a spider with an effective capability for specific stuff like tat, we'd be using it to close down sites already.
The UK has certainly outlawed fakes, in fact there's a specific crime of creating a fake image with different penalties.
I believe that's based on the conclusion formed here that the habit 'grows', but also that we don't want to be unable to tell if a child has been hurt due to the inability to tell fakes from real.
My bad, I should have qualified (as I did in another mail) that I meant individuals with large volumes of kp on their machines - I think the chap in the original article is unlikely to be a problem with only 172 images. However, I do think that people with images (including this chap) should be investigated, and the law can decide, as it did here, if there is a legit explanation. The original poster (AIUI) was suggesting that it didn't matter, and should be ignored, which is what I disagreed with, on the grounds I stated.
However, I certainly never said the blanket statement
that people who have kiddie porn on their machine obtained it intentionally
so please don't put words in my mouth. Making shit up is just what you were accusing me of.
With regard to your second point, there is an established pattern used in various places to target lesser crimes which are statistically committed more by individuals likely to commit the serious crime that you're after. So targetting people who have accessed kp means that you will be likely to get those who would abuse kids onto the Sex Offenders Register (or whatever the US equivalent is). Problem contained?
With regard to your first, whose children are you going to let be abused to create these images? It is, after all, a noticable pattern amongst offenders that they desire to collect more and newer images. Or are you going to ask Disney to contract to fake them with their Linux boxen? Do you really think that would reduce the problem? I can't see it.
Lastly, the witch-hunt aspect I agree with. But I'd say that about any crime. One must always use one's head to achieve the best result.
No it isn't! I do sincerely doubt it. If I had stated it as a fact, you would be right, but I'm not an idiot, so I didn't. Please read and understand my point before replying!
Anyway, my doubt is based on the 'compulsive' element that appears in these cases. Alcoholics consume more if it's available. So do hard drug users. I think that's a reasonable model for the mental process involved.
Wow. You keep dling stuff from these sources too? Who's the idiot!?
Nah, offence (in each direction) aside, I did say a magic button that dls large numbers. It's absurd (to me) to suggest that there is a regular problem with people who click one wrong buttom and end up with large amounts without realising which was the original poster's suggestion.
Although I'll listen with interest if you disagree - I am quite content to be mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
We already argued your second point, didn't we? Do keep up.
J.
MS have released broken patches in the past you moron. Hence big businesses doesn't usually let admins apply patches to production machines without regression testing, hence my question. That's one reason why it takes so long for patches to get applied.
Also, I wasn't comparing any OS with any other, so leave out the 'Linux is just as bad' rant. How old are you?!
J.
J.
Oh, and I nearly forgot: millions of broadband users that don't know anything about patching and don't use firewalling software cos they are just Joe and Jane User - they prolly account for a good proportion.
Anyway: Linux had nine? Bollocks. I'm sure various packages associated with Open Source had vulnerabilities, but the kernel? No. Prove me wrong.
J.
J.
Windows is easier to pick up, but just as hard, possibly harder, to maintain than *nix. So you get less-trained or less-capable or whatever people who are employed doing this, who look fine on the day-to-day, but who are damn-near useless at the harder stuff like security - which should, of course, be the day to day.
Combine that with the sheer number of sever and critical patches MS expects you to apply, each of which must go through regression testing before deployment, and you can see why sticking the ol' head in the sand looks appealing...
J.
Hey! I resent th...
So, err, 83 then ;-)
Morons on the board, morons writing the copy.
J.
I had no idea so many /.ers would be bothered to phone that free number and leave details... ;-)
J.
Collectors of images cause images to be made. It's that simple.
J.
If you set a spider to dl shitloads of stuff, then you are aware - it's not a 'wrong button' in the sense we were discussing earlier. Plus, if you randomly dl that much stuff and don't look at it, you're a very strange individual indeed.
J.
Point accepted.
J.
People don't pay people to do bank robberies so they can look at the pictures. They do pay people to assault children so they can look at the pictures. Can you see the difference?
Or, to re-use your terrific debating technique above: Have you realised you're a dick yet, or have you changed your mind?
J.
The second is the brilliant observation that got punted around a few years ago that the maximum permitted speed in a state does not correlate to the number of fatalities in that state. Well not compared to the huge differences in roads, light, weather etc, no! It's daft to compare Utah with New York state.
I would suggest that the number of accidents is in proportion to both the mean speed on the road and the observed mean speed differential of the traffic.
None of these observations detract from the suggestion that reducing everyone's speed reduces the number and seriousness of accidents.
Sadly, it's almost time to go home here, so this is it for the day.
J.
Do tell me you accept that lower speeds save lives...
J.
I rather meant 'in very few goes, without you noticing'..?
I think it would be worse, as it's a compulsive interest, legal or no, so take-up would increase (but still only by those interested), resulting in more children hurt.
J.
Bollocks, say I. No stats here, just personal experience. I'm ex-resident of Amsterdam, now resident back in the UK. I have observed the drug scene in both situations with very similar people. I firmly think that people who want to take drugs simply want as much as they want and that legality is entirely incidental.
By criminalising drugs, the money goes to the crims, who have a vested interest in getting users on harder stuff. That's where the increased usage comes from.
Naturally, you may disagree.
Justin.
J.
I believe that's based on the conclusion formed here that the habit 'grows', but also that we don't want to be unable to tell if a child has been hurt due to the inability to tell fakes from real.
J.
However, I certainly never said the blanket statement
so please don't put words in my mouth. Making shit up is just what you were accusing me of.J.
With regard to your first, whose children are you going to let be abused to create these images? It is, after all, a noticable pattern amongst offenders that they desire to collect more and newer images. Or are you going to ask Disney to contract to fake them with their Linux boxen? Do you really think that would reduce the problem? I can't see it.
Lastly, the witch-hunt aspect I agree with. But I'd say that about any crime. One must always use one's head to achieve the best result.
J.
Anyway, my doubt is based on the 'compulsive' element that appears in these cases. Alcoholics consume more if it's available. So do hard drug users. I think that's a reasonable model for the mental process involved.
YMMV.
J.
Wow. You keep dling stuff from these sources too? Who's the idiot!?
Nah, offence (in each direction) aside, I did say a magic button that dls large numbers. It's absurd (to me) to suggest that there is a regular problem with people who click one wrong buttom and end up with large amounts without realising which was the original poster's suggestion.
Although I'll listen with interest if you disagree - I am quite content to be mistaken.
J.