Both Barnado's and the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (of which the NSPCC are a member) lobbied the Government to criminalise possession of so-called "extreme" adult images (something which, unlike this case, has nothing to do with children, and covers mere possession, not just publication on the Internet), which has now passed. (See their reponses to the Government consultation.)
I'm sure they both do some good work, but when it comes to political lobbying, Barnado's are no saints either - they're as bad as each other. Give your money to a cats charity or something:/
Uh. In this case, children's charities are asking for this, not the government.
Well, the lobbying is certainly scary (especially from children's charities - it makes you think twice who to donate money to, when seemingly good causes are engage in political lobbying. The Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, along with other children's charities, even lobbied for the UK's recent ban on adult images, that criminalises possession of images considered to be "extreme"), although note that the Government are calling for this too:
The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007....
Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "In 2006 the government stated that they wished to see 100% of consumer broadband connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse, by the end of 2007.
"Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."
Indeed - the recent Wikipedia / Virgin Killer example shows that their definition is not just about abuse. Another example would be to note that the law now covers images up to 18, even though the age of consent is 16, so anything above that is entirely legal to do.
The IWF like to talk about "child abuse images", but their actual list covers anything which is potentially an "indecent" image of somebody under 18.
I'm particularly displeased at the BBC's bias on this article - they reproduce the spin that this is just about images of child abuse, and don't give any opposing point of view (apart from a brief statement from Zen Internet - good on them). No mention of the issues with Wikipedia (it only appears in "See also", which is presumably an automated list).
They also mention the NSPCC and the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, implying that two organisations are lobbying for this - but the NSPCC are in fact a member of the latter group!
I never said that OS X was Unix, I said it wasn't classic Mac OS. Sure, I'm sure there exist OS X users who were classic Mac users, just as there are OS X users who were Amiga users, or Windows users who were classic Mac users or whatever else. I don't see why this means OS X users should hate ssh-ing.
Although now that I think of it, yes, it does fit in with Apple's "it's better to treat the user like an idiot, and let's frown upon any other way of doing it, even if it might be better".
If criminals knew that much about IT, they would have an IT career, not a criminal one.
Unlikely - that argument might work for petty thieves, but not major criminals, especially terrorists whose motivation is often not money in the first place.
I agree. I also love the practice of how the police try to demonise things by referring to them as "rings". I guess we'll be hearing about a crackdown on "Skype rings".
Or indeed, people who would be made criminals by stupid laws, even though they are harmless (e.g., in the UK, we have all sorts of laws on distribution or in some cases even possession of adult imagery, which would still apply to consenting adults doing something saucy over private webcam). Of course, even when it's legal, it's perfectly reasonable to use encryption to keep it private, as you say.
It doesn't matter about time. The point is that classic MacOS was ditched, and they shifted to a new platform OS X. Trying to say the workflow of classic MacOS applies to a new platform 7 years later makes no more sense than saying that the AmigaOS workflow applies. Sure, some people might have been classic Mac users and then became OS X users, but plenty of OS X users were previously using other platforms. In fact, given how OS X seems to be a lot more popular than classic Mac OS was, I'd say this is true for most of them.
Yeah, because obviously the only alternative to Macs is running Linux!
Some of us value having a nice GUI to back up a solid set of internals without having to waste time and energy on fixing broken drivers and sticking patches on everything so that we can have a computer that does the things we ask of it without making exceptions for this, exceptions for that, patches for this, workaround for that. It's not 1993 and there's more to life than a command line.
So of us had a command line and a GUI way before 1993. Macs didn't even have a command line in 1993, or for years after. Is that the best that can be said of OS X - it has a command line and a GUI? Welcome to 1985.
Yes, I am aware of this distinction (I was actually present in court for some of the Operation Ore convictions, so saw first hand how the cases are handled), but it's only "making" because the bits that correspond to the image are stored, presumably on a permanent storage medium. It's "making" in the same way that taking a physical photo and photocopying it would be. Which seems reasonable enough: a new copy comes into existence.
But "making" still counts as being illegal.
So, I'll stand by my original theory: downloading and viewing such images would not be illegal if done with a browser that does not store a copy of the image.
You may be right, but we are just speculating. You have to hope that a court agrees with you. If you know about Operation Ore, I'm sure you know what an ordeal suspects go through (arrest, stress of a trial, having all equipment seized for months, being coerced into pleading guilty and being placed on the Sex Offender Register in return for not going to prison), even if a court might find them not guilty.
It's not like the OP was claiming that having the information in RAM only was certainly illegal, he was clearly talking about viewing websites in general, which for normal browsers would be illegal.
If that is the case (it probably isn't lets face it)
What probably isn't the case? Are you disputing that the mobile phone market is at least hundreds of millions? Or that most phones these days have Internet access?
That's interesting to see, and I'm sure that Flash will start to make its way onto phones - however, a product being available on high end phones as of 2010 is a long way from 99% penetration. Most people only buy a new phone every few years, and most people don't buy smartphones.
It's a return to the PD and shareware library ethos of old (old? I mean late 80s/early 90s). I remember paying a buck or two for a disk with a raft of simple, mostly awful Commadore Amiga games. Fred Fish anyone?
Not really - the point is that these applications and games were freely distributable, and before the Internet, you were paying to cover the costs of distributing the material on disks. It's no different to buying Linux on CD.
Poor quality shareware (or rather, crippleware/trialware) was more a problem on Windows in the 90s, where all sorts of trivial applications that might be free on other platforms, charged you £20 on Windows.
Although yes, it's true that most stuff would be awful. That applies to anything really - free or not.
He's not saying that all well-defined laws are good. However, a necessary condition for a good law is that it is well-defined.
A law that criminalises sex with someone who has not met some vague unmeasurable definition of maturity would be a very bad law. People would live in fear of being prosecuted if it turns out the person doesn't meet the test, but would have no way of knowing that until they are prosecuted and go to court.
You're missing the point. You original compared this law, to laws on "various laws that make it illegal to distribute things without adequate source documentation -- food and ingredient lists, drugs and dosages, clothes and country of origin, appliances and their wattage" suggesting that both were laws on distribution.
However, all these laws apply not just to distribution, but to selling. There're no laws that regulate when people cook for other people in their own homes for example. But give an image to a friend, and it would count as distribution.
Indeed. And not just dating sites - how would it work for any blogging/social-networking-etc site where someone posts a topless picture of themselves?
Most sites aren't going to go to the hassle of demanding and keeping records, or fear legal consequences - so I fear such a ruling will result in blanket bans of any kind of nudity on most sites.
So how come the same police that demand CCTV, also ran an advertising campaign last year, labelling people who take photos in public as being possible terrorists, and urging people to report them to the police?
What about the new law that criminalises taking photos of police?
I don't think it's as simple as private or public. Yes, I think that this ruling is batshit, but that doesn't mean it's comparable to discrimination laws. It also doesn't follow that if they can do one, they can do the other, as it's entirely separate laws that are at issue here: this case is because the police can set requirements for an alcohol licence; the discrimination laws are explicitly set by the Government, and apply to all businesses. They were able to do the former, long before the latter laws came about (which was only in the last few years).
Do you oppose employment discrimination laws too, because they're private companies?
P.S. Don't even think about comparing me to Daily Mail readers unless you want to say it to my face and get a smack.
Wait - so you brand cannabis users as causing a situation to turn "ugly", but when someone says something you don't like, you threaten them with violence?
No, you don't sound like a Daily Mail reader. Just a common thug.
(Smoking on public transport is illegal now in the UK - doesn't matter what it is, or how strong the Daily Mail claims it is.)
Flash is pretty ubiquitous. It comes on every Windows PC loaded with Internet Explorer, and it's an easy download for Macs and Linux machines. The Android phone OS from Google supports Flash, and Adobe has announced a working Flash for iPhone, simply awaiting Apple's go-ahead. The new Palm Pre phone will have Flash. Windows Mobile has Flash Lite. Probably, Apple will allow Flash if Pre and Android phone sales take off.
Note, their stats don't include phones. If they did, then they wouldn't be anywhere near 99% - as you've then got the probably hundreds of millions of phones that are Internet enabled, but most of them don't do Flash.
Well, if we're including the Iphone, then why forget that there were, you know, other phones before the Iphone? Try hundreds of millions of Internet enabled phones, the vast majority of which won't have flash.
Clearly, their statistics don't include phones at all. What's more, if you RTFA, you'll see they state "PC Penetration". Is the Iphone a PC? I don't think so. Admittedly their "Flash content reaches 99.0% of Internet viewers" headline is misleading, but the first paragraph does clarify "Internet-enabled desktops". Is the Iphone a "desktop"? Again, I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
Both Barnado's and the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (of which the NSPCC are a member) lobbied the Government to criminalise possession of so-called "extreme" adult images (something which, unlike this case, has nothing to do with children, and covers mere possession, not just publication on the Internet), which has now passed. (See their reponses to the Government consultation.)
I'm sure they both do some good work, but when it comes to political lobbying, Barnado's are no saints either - they're as bad as each other. Give your money to a cats charity or something :/
Uh. In this case, children's charities are asking for this, not the government.
Well, the lobbying is certainly scary (especially from children's charities - it makes you think twice who to donate money to, when seemingly good causes are engage in political lobbying. The Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, along with other children's charities, even lobbied for the UK's recent ban on adult images, that criminalises possession of images considered to be "extreme"), although note that the Government are calling for this too:
The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007. ...
Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "In 2006 the government stated that they wished to see 100% of consumer broadband connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse, by the end of 2007.
"Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."
Indeed - the recent Wikipedia / Virgin Killer example shows that their definition is not just about abuse. Another example would be to note that the law now covers images up to 18, even though the age of consent is 16, so anything above that is entirely legal to do.
The IWF like to talk about "child abuse images", but their actual list covers anything which is potentially an "indecent" image of somebody under 18.
I'm particularly displeased at the BBC's bias on this article - they reproduce the spin that this is just about images of child abuse, and don't give any opposing point of view (apart from a brief statement from Zen Internet - good on them). No mention of the issues with Wikipedia (it only appears in "See also", which is presumably an automated list).
They also mention the NSPCC and the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, implying that two organisations are lobbying for this - but the NSPCC are in fact a member of the latter group!
You can complain about bias: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
I never said that OS X was Unix, I said it wasn't classic Mac OS. Sure, I'm sure there exist OS X users who were classic Mac users, just as there are OS X users who were Amiga users, or Windows users who were classic Mac users or whatever else. I don't see why this means OS X users should hate ssh-ing.
Although now that I think of it, yes, it does fit in with Apple's "it's better to treat the user like an idiot, and let's frown upon any other way of doing it, even if it might be better".
If criminals knew that much about IT, they would have an IT career, not a criminal one.
Unlikely - that argument might work for petty thieves, but not major criminals, especially terrorists whose motivation is often not money in the first place.
I agree. I also love the practice of how the police try to demonise things by referring to them as "rings". I guess we'll be hearing about a crackdown on "Skype rings".
Or indeed, people who would be made criminals by stupid laws, even though they are harmless (e.g., in the UK, we have all sorts of laws on distribution or in some cases even possession of adult imagery, which would still apply to consenting adults doing something saucy over private webcam). Of course, even when it's legal, it's perfectly reasonable to use encryption to keep it private, as you say.
It doesn't matter about time. The point is that classic MacOS was ditched, and they shifted to a new platform OS X. Trying to say the workflow of classic MacOS applies to a new platform 7 years later makes no more sense than saying that the AmigaOS workflow applies. Sure, some people might have been classic Mac users and then became OS X users, but plenty of OS X users were previously using other platforms. In fact, given how OS X seems to be a lot more popular than classic Mac OS was, I'd say this is true for most of them.
Yeah, because obviously the only alternative to Macs is running Linux!
Some of us value having a nice GUI to back up a solid set of internals without having to waste time and energy on fixing broken drivers and sticking patches on everything so that we can have a computer that does the things we ask of it without making exceptions for this, exceptions for that, patches for this, workaround for that. It's not 1993 and there's more to life than a command line.
So of us had a command line and a GUI way before 1993. Macs didn't even have a command line in 1993, or for years after. Is that the best that can be said of OS X - it has a command line and a GUI? Welcome to 1985.
Yes, I am aware of this distinction (I was actually present in court for some of the Operation Ore convictions, so saw first hand how the cases are handled), but it's only "making" because the bits that correspond to the image are stored, presumably on a permanent storage medium. It's "making" in the same way that taking a physical photo and photocopying it would be. Which seems reasonable enough: a new copy comes into existence.
But "making" still counts as being illegal.
So, I'll stand by my original theory: downloading and viewing such images would not be illegal if done with a browser that does not store a copy of the image.
You may be right, but we are just speculating. You have to hope that a court agrees with you. If you know about Operation Ore, I'm sure you know what an ordeal suspects go through (arrest, stress of a trial, having all equipment seized for months, being coerced into pleading guilty and being placed on the Sex Offender Register in return for not going to prison), even if a court might find them not guilty.
It's not like the OP was claiming that having the information in RAM only was certainly illegal, he was clearly talking about viewing websites in general, which for normal browsers would be illegal.
Granted -- but there has got to be a more accurate (but still solid) definition of maturity than age.
Let's hear it then?
If that is the case (it probably isn't lets face it)
What probably isn't the case? Are you disputing that the mobile phone market is at least hundreds of millions? Or that most phones these days have Internet access?
then it won't stay that way for long - checkout http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-10164745-78.html.
That's interesting to see, and I'm sure that Flash will start to make its way onto phones - however, a product being available on high end phones as of 2010 is a long way from 99% penetration. Most people only buy a new phone every few years, and most people don't buy smartphones.
It's a return to the PD and shareware library ethos of old (old? I mean late 80s/early 90s). I remember paying a buck or two for a disk with a raft of simple, mostly awful Commadore Amiga games. Fred Fish anyone?
Not really - the point is that these applications and games were freely distributable, and before the Internet, you were paying to cover the costs of distributing the material on disks. It's no different to buying Linux on CD.
Poor quality shareware (or rather, crippleware/trialware) was more a problem on Windows in the 90s, where all sorts of trivial applications that might be free on other platforms, charged you £20 on Windows.
Although yes, it's true that most stuff would be awful. That applies to anything really - free or not.
He's not saying that all well-defined laws are good. However, a necessary condition for a good law is that it is well-defined.
A law that criminalises sex with someone who has not met some vague unmeasurable definition of maturity would be a very bad law. People would live in fear of being prosecuted if it turns out the person doesn't meet the test, but would have no way of knowing that until they are prosecuted and go to court.
Makes it difficult to become a pediatrician.
Here in the UK, News Of The World readers get round that by thinking that pedo-tricians are the ones abusing children too...
You're missing the point. You original compared this law, to laws on "various laws that make it illegal to distribute things without adequate source documentation -- food and ingredient lists, drugs and dosages, clothes and country of origin, appliances and their wattage" suggesting that both were laws on distribution.
However, all these laws apply not just to distribution, but to selling. There're no laws that regulate when people cook for other people in their own homes for example. But give an image to a friend, and it would count as distribution.
Indeed. And not just dating sites - how would it work for any blogging/social-networking-etc site where someone posts a topless picture of themselves?
Most sites aren't going to go to the hassle of demanding and keeping records, or fear legal consequences - so I fear such a ruling will result in blanket bans of any kind of nudity on most sites.
Just to clarify - they're not merely proposing, rather, it's now law that's come into effect, as of 16 February.
So how come the same police that demand CCTV, also ran an advertising campaign last year, labelling people who take photos in public as being possible terrorists, and urging people to report them to the police?
What about the new law that criminalises taking photos of police?
The "It's in public..." argument works both ways.
Without seeing the questions asked, that poll is meaningless. The URL for the survey pdf is now dead.
I don't think it's as simple as private or public. Yes, I think that this ruling is batshit, but that doesn't mean it's comparable to discrimination laws. It also doesn't follow that if they can do one, they can do the other, as it's entirely separate laws that are at issue here: this case is because the police can set requirements for an alcohol licence; the discrimination laws are explicitly set by the Government, and apply to all businesses. They were able to do the former, long before the latter laws came about (which was only in the last few years).
Do you oppose employment discrimination laws too, because they're private companies?
P.S. Don't even think about comparing me to Daily Mail readers unless you want to say it to my face and get a smack.
Wait - so you brand cannabis users as causing a situation to turn "ugly", but when someone says something you don't like, you threaten them with violence?
No, you don't sound like a Daily Mail reader. Just a common thug.
(Smoking on public transport is illegal now in the UK - doesn't matter what it is, or how strong the Daily Mail claims it is.)
Flash is pretty ubiquitous. It comes on every Windows PC loaded with Internet Explorer, and it's an easy download for Macs and Linux machines. The Android phone OS from Google supports Flash, and Adobe has announced a working Flash for iPhone, simply awaiting Apple's go-ahead. The new Palm Pre phone will have Flash. Windows Mobile has Flash Lite. Probably, Apple will allow Flash if Pre and Android phone sales take off.
Note, their stats don't include phones. If they did, then they wouldn't be anywhere near 99% - as you've then got the probably hundreds of millions of phones that are Internet enabled, but most of them don't do Flash.
Indeed, although note that Adobe don't appear to use the term "net devices", they say "PC" or "Internet-enabled desktop".
Well, if we're including the Iphone, then why forget that there were, you know, other phones before the Iphone? Try hundreds of millions of Internet enabled phones, the vast majority of which won't have flash.
Clearly, their statistics don't include phones at all. What's more, if you RTFA, you'll see they state "PC Penetration". Is the Iphone a PC? I don't think so. Admittedly their "Flash content reaches 99.0% of Internet viewers" headline is misleading, but the first paragraph does clarify "Internet-enabled desktops". Is the Iphone a "desktop"? Again, I don't think so.