>If it is the case I think you are referring to, she was not charged with possession of child porn for having nude pictures of herself. She and her boyfriend took pictures of themselves and sent them to each other. Both were charged with possession of child porn for having pictures of the other and both were charged with transmitting child porn for send the images to each other.
It sounds so much more reasonable when you put it like that.
>Under UK law, an image of a naked child is usually considered child pornography; context is irrelevant.
I would suggest otherwise and so would Sir Elton John, Nan Goldin and the CPS, who were all involved with an image that was seized by police, who considered it obscene, but which was later returned, despite showing a young naked girl doing the splits in front of the camera: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/26/artnews.art
If that wasn't obscene, then it raises the question of what criteria the IWF are using to censor the internet.
>Looking at the picture in question, I have little doubt that it would be considered child porn under the modern laws of at least US and UK.
Interesting, because recently there was something of a 'storm'/'furore'/[insert tabloid adjective of choice here] over some photographs being shown in a UK gallery. It caused a big stink not least among photographers and artists concerned about freedom of expression.
The photo was called 'Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing' by photographer Nan Goldin and was part of a collection being lent out by Sir Elton John; at that point in time being shown at the Baltic gallery in Gateshead. It showed two girls messing about, one of whom was doing a sort of splits, she was, if I remember correctly, not completely naked but was at least without pants and her va-jay-jay was pointed directly at the camera, for all to see.
It was seized by the local cops and the media had a big to-do about it.
We may have a great deal of empty-headed reactionary hysteria about the whole issue of children/nudity/sex here in the UK, but we're not at the point where they have to walk about in full niqab like wahabi women in Saudi Arabia, lest some stray paedophile get aroused. Well, not yet.
And if the Nan Golwin image is considered OK for the proles to view, it strikes me as entirely indefensible that the image we're all talking about now is being censored for being obscene considering its decorum when compared to the Goldwin image.
It would seem, comparing the two cases that the IWF are using criteria for judging images that goes against current standards that have been tested and reviewed, which would, in turn seem to suggest that they can't be trusted to censor what the British people see on their internets without credible oversight of their actions.
Their decisions clearly need to be opened up to (credible) scrutiny.
It's been suggested (if not 'found') that emotional/social bullying is far far worse that physical bulling. The effects are felt more keenly and last far longer than if you're punched and kicked.
>She made it important. It's been two centuries since then and she's still only a footnote.
I don't know about that. She was possibly one of only three important people in the history of medicine that I learned about when I was a child here in the UK. And my impression was that she was somewhat sainted (despite any lack of formal 'establishment' status); regarded as a genuine heroine to be lauded by all.
(The others were Alexander Fleming and Louis Pasteur).
The 'industry' (parasitic, development-repelling middle-men) howl and tear at their hair and eyes. They take to the streets, shirtless, throwing themselves to the tarmac, flailing themselves with mic stands. With raised arms and tear soaked faces they cry for Moolah's mercy.
Obama is taken in by their deceit, takes pity on them, shelves Lessig and appoints their preferred Cszar; the zombie Jack Valenti.
This ruling was made in the UK. We have slightly different advertising standards to the US. In the UK, the sort of thing you're suggesting is not allowed:
I will give you all 1 million dollars* for reading this post! .
Please mod this and all similar posts down (nothing personal TheRaven64).
Phorm is not "Inserting adverts [and thus] creating and distributing a derived work from the copyrighted material."
It is performing a man-in-the-middle attack to glean information from all ISP subscribers, and using that information to serve 'tageted adverts' on PARTICIPATING websites; sites that have signed up to use Phorm as an advertising provider.
The only copyright infringement that might occur is that Phorm scrapes websites (by hijacking the ISP subscriber's session) but does not respect the robot text. It can therefore (arguably) be said to be in breach of a website's usage agreement.
Phorm have said that they respect the robot.txt restrictions only in agregate: where no robots are allowed they will not go, but if ANY specific spidering is allowed, they (wrongly) calim that they are also allowed.
Phorm (and apparently also BT) are scum. I pray that they're found guilty of computer misuse, but this will have to be the result of a ruling by the EU (rather than the incompetent British government).
It goes without saying that, should this happen, the guilty parties will not serve jail time (since they are corporate and rich with contacts in the government) but hopefully, the immoral and corrupt spyware scheme that BT is creating with Phorm will be stopped.
Your post just made me think of a positive use for this insane 'allegation=conviction' law:
You're in a 12 month lock-in contract with your ISP and a cheaper, better alternative has just come to market. You send 3 allegations of copyright infringement, accusing yourself. Voilla! New ISP.:)
DRM is like going to the pub and forgetting your key and ringing up your girlfriend (stay with me, guys) and telling her you forgot your keys and her saying that she'll put the key outside for you to find, but not in the usual place (under the plant pot by the back door) but somewhere less obvious so that a thief won't find it, and then your phone runs out of credit and you never get to hear where she put it.
And then you getting home later that night and facing two choices: stumble around your back yard, drunk, looking for where she hid the key using whatever twisted logic she always employs (but is never consistent in) and get inside without causing her any grief (free) or bang on the door and wake her up, get in the house, but have to pay the price for it.
THAT is DRM, sir.
(No cars were used in this analogy. Drink-driving costs lives.)
>>>In its ruling, the appeals court said an encryption key is no different than a physical key and exists separately from a person's will.
>If a presumed-innocent person drops an actual key into a hole-in-the-ground, and refuses to divulge its location, the police can't incarcerate him simply because he refuses to say where it's located. That's loss of liberty without due process. They have to let him go.
So is the route around this ridiculous and false judgement (that an encryption key is no different than a physical key and exists separately from a person's will) that instead of refusing to divulge the 'key' (it's really a passphrase) you say you wrote the key down on a piece of paper (becasue it was so complex you could not remember it) and cannot remember where you put the piece of paper?
>Well technically, FireFox/FireBird/Phoenix/FireWhatever has from day one featured an option for scraping any traces (and same for Mozilla and Netscape).
Technically, 'from day one'... UNTIL the arrival of the AwesomelyShitBarâ which flatly ignores your instructions to 'clear private data' and hangs on to your browsing history for grim death.
The story submission makes assertions about the claims in the various user agreements and then 'supports' these claims by linking to the entire agreements, leaving it for you to sift through the masses of text yourself, to prove or disprove the claims!
Why not just say something like "User agreements are bad, go google up some EULAs and see for yourself!"
Slashdot Mirror
>If it is the case I think you are referring to, she was not charged with possession of child porn for having nude pictures of herself. She and her boyfriend took pictures of themselves and sent them to each other. Both were charged with possession of child porn for having pictures of the other and both were charged with transmitting child porn for send the images to each other.
It sounds so much more reasonable when you put it like that.
>Under UK law, an image of a naked child is usually considered child pornography; context is irrelevant.
I would suggest otherwise and so would Sir Elton John, Nan Goldin and the CPS, who were all involved with an image that was seized by police, who considered it obscene, but which was later returned, despite showing a young naked girl doing the splits in front of the camera:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/26/artnews.art
If that wasn't obscene, then it raises the question of what criteria the IWF are using to censor the internet.
Their own, arbitrary one, perhaps?
>Looking at the picture in question, I have little doubt that it would be considered child porn under the modern laws of at least US and UK.
Interesting, because recently there was something of a 'storm'/'furore'/[insert tabloid adjective of choice here] over some photographs being shown in a UK gallery. It caused a big stink not least among photographers and artists concerned about freedom of expression.
The photo was called 'Klara And Edda Belly-Dancing' by photographer Nan Goldin and was part of a collection being lent out by Sir Elton John; at that point in time being shown at the Baltic gallery in Gateshead. It showed two girls messing about, one of whom was doing a sort of splits, she was, if I remember correctly, not completely naked but was at least without pants and her va-jay-jay was pointed directly at the camera, for all to see.
It was seized by the local cops and the media had a big to-do about it.
And then it was returned; considered not obscene:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/26/artnews.art
We may have a great deal of empty-headed reactionary hysteria about the whole issue of children/nudity/sex here in the UK, but we're not at the point where they have to walk about in full niqab like wahabi women in Saudi Arabia, lest some stray paedophile get aroused. Well, not yet.
And if the Nan Golwin image is considered OK for the proles to view, it strikes me as entirely indefensible that the image we're all talking about now is being censored for being obscene considering its decorum when compared to the Goldwin image.
It would seem, comparing the two cases that the IWF are using criteria for judging images that goes against current standards that have been tested and reviewed, which would, in turn seem to suggest that they can't be trusted to censor what the British people see on their internets without credible oversight of their actions.
Their decisions clearly need to be opened up to (credible) scrutiny.
You are Darl McBride! And I claim my free Linux license!
It's been suggested (if not 'found') that emotional/social bullying is far far worse that physical bulling. The effects are felt more keenly and last far longer than if you're punched and kicked.
>She made it important. It's been two centuries since then and she's still only a footnote.
I don't know about that. She was possibly one of only three important people in the history of medicine that I learned about when I was a child here in the UK. And my impression was that she was somewhat sainted (despite any lack of formal 'establishment' status); regarded as a genuine heroine to be lauded by all.
(The others were Alexander Fleming and Louis Pasteur).
>>The game is garbage. It was heavily gimped to fit on the 7 gigabyte 360 DVD format
>The PC version requires 18gb of disk space.
7GB for the game, and 11GB for the copy protection.
Lessig becomes copyright Czsar.
The 'industry' (parasitic, development-repelling middle-men) howl and tear at their hair and eyes. They take to the streets, shirtless, throwing themselves to the tarmac, flailing themselves with mic stands. With raised arms and tear soaked faces they cry for Moolah's mercy.
Obama is taken in by their deceit, takes pity on them, shelves Lessig and appoints their preferred Cszar; the zombie Jack Valenti.
This ruling was made in the UK. We have slightly different advertising standards to the US. In the UK, the sort of thing you're suggesting is not allowed:
I will give you all 1 million dollars* for reading this post!
.
.
*1 million imaginary dollars
>it would be helpful to not have to put -site:expertsexchange.com in every search.
Well, if you're using Firefox, there's always the Customise Google add-on, which features search filters.
What happens?
Society is forced to confront its collective stupidity.
Please mod this and all similar posts down (nothing personal TheRaven64).
Phorm is not "Inserting adverts [and thus] creating and distributing a derived work from the copyrighted material."
It is performing a man-in-the-middle attack to glean information from all ISP subscribers, and using that information to serve 'tageted adverts' on PARTICIPATING websites; sites that have signed up to use Phorm as an advertising provider.
The only copyright infringement that might occur is that Phorm scrapes websites (by hijacking the ISP subscriber's session) but does not respect the robot text. It can therefore (arguably) be said to be in breach of a website's usage agreement.
Phorm have said that they respect the robot.txt restrictions only in agregate: where no robots are allowed they will not go, but if ANY specific spidering is allowed, they (wrongly) calim that they are also allowed.
Phorm (and apparently also BT) are scum. I pray that they're found guilty of computer misuse, but this will have to be the result of a ruling by the EU (rather than the incompetent British government).
It goes without saying that, should this happen, the guilty parties will not serve jail time (since they are corporate and rich with contacts in the government) but hopefully, the immoral and corrupt spyware scheme that BT is creating with Phorm will be stopped.
I guess I was expecting a 'Redundant'.
Why is this modded 'funny'?
>How does it help to know that the person you're looking for used a copy of Windows XP or Vista?
If it's VISTA, it narrows the search?
'Commercial sensitivity' trumps democratic accountability. That's not right, is it?
>You can disable this feature by logging into the router and clicking the Advanced Tab and Secure Spot on the left side.
>D-Link Customer Service
Unethical to enable it by default and not tell the customer about it *until* it hijacks the connection (if you ask me) but easily disabled apparently.
Your post just made me think of a positive use for this insane 'allegation=conviction' law:
You're in a 12 month lock-in contract with your ISP and a cheaper, better alternative has just come to market. You send 3 allegations of copyright infringement, accusing yourself. Voilla! New ISP. :)
DRM is like going to the pub and forgetting your key and ringing up your girlfriend (stay with me, guys) and telling her you forgot your keys and her saying that she'll put the key outside for you to find, but not in the usual place (under the plant pot by the back door) but somewhere less obvious so that a thief won't find it, and then your phone runs out of credit and you never get to hear where she put it.
And then you getting home later that night and facing two choices: stumble around your back yard, drunk, looking for where she hid the key using whatever twisted logic she always employs (but is never consistent in) and get inside without causing her any grief (free) or bang on the door and wake her up, get in the house, but have to pay the price for it.
THAT is DRM, sir.
(No cars were used in this analogy. Drink-driving costs lives.)
We're English - we do this sort of thing in a much more civilized and less efficient manner than the Germans.
Besides, it's still early days in this budding police state.
>>>In its ruling, the appeals court said an encryption key is no different than a physical key and exists separately from a person's will.
>If a presumed-innocent person drops an actual key into a hole-in-the-ground, and refuses to divulge its location, the police can't incarcerate him simply because he refuses to say where it's located. That's loss of liberty without due process. They have to let him go.
So is the route around this ridiculous and false judgement (that an encryption key is no different than a physical key and exists separately from a person's will) that instead of refusing to divulge the 'key' (it's really a passphrase) you say you wrote the key down on a piece of paper (becasue it was so complex you could not remember it) and cannot remember where you put the piece of paper?
Thanks. It seemed quite obviously wrong when it happened.
I'll look into filing a bug report.
* Not record sites visited to the browser's history.
But would they still be recorded in the AwesomeBar?
The AwesomeBar doesn't clear its history when you click 'clear browsing history'.
>Well technically, FireFox/FireBird/Phoenix/FireWhatever has from day one featured an option for scraping any traces (and same for Mozilla and Netscape).
Technically, 'from day one' ... UNTIL the arrival of the AwesomelyShitBarâ which flatly ignores your instructions to 'clear private data' and hangs on to your browsing history for grim death.
The story submission makes assertions about the claims in the various user agreements and then 'supports' these claims by linking to the entire agreements, leaving it for you to sift through the masses of text yourself, to prove or disprove the claims!
Why not just say something like "User agreements are bad, go google up some EULAs and see for yourself!"
New. Low.