How is it insane to be required to report child pornography to the police IF YOU ARE NOTIFIED OF IT? RTFA, you don't have to look for it yourself, monitor traffic, or anything like that. Just pass on reports if you happen to get them.
RTFA. You don't have to - you only have to notify the police if someone brings a case to your attention, such as "this and that user of yours is hosting child pornography on the webspace you provide them". There's nothing that says ISPs have to actively hunt for it, monitor anything and so on.
So an image of a person under the age of 16 who does not appear to be under the age of 16 would not be considered child abuse?
Also, what does "appears to be" mean? Does it have to be "active" (so to speak) appearance, as in causing people to believe (or at least assume) that the person is under 16 when they see the picture, or is it enough for people to believe you when you tell them the person is under 16 (even though they might also believe you when you tell them the person is 16 or over)?
What about people who are 16 or over but do not appear to be (in whatever sense)?
That *is* sad, yes - kinda reminds me of the legislative efforts to ban pornographic *drawings* and the like that involved people under the legal age in whatever jurisdiction you happen to be in.
It's a kind of cargo cult, really - people ultimately forget what the original legislation banning child pornography was supposed to accomplish (namely, protecting the actual children involved), and now worship the outlawing of the idea of children in sexual situations as such instead.
The idea that you can convict someone based on newspaper clippings that have an erotic context to them is in the same league, as is the idea that you should outlaw pornography where adults dress up as children (or at least, where some censor thinks they dress up as children).
That just shows again that Canada's actually a sane place, unlike many others.:) Seriously, where I live, the police would file a lawsuit against *me* as well if I reported child pornography directly to them, since by coming across it, I'd most likely have a copy in my browser cache, which would mean I'd be in possession of child porn which is, of course, illegal.
It's really a rather ridiculous thing. *headshakes* Fortunately, there is a system in place where you can anonymously report child porn so that action can be taken against it without you getting a visit from the police as well.
Why would deleting those sites be illegal, though? It's your server, it's free hosting, they're violating your terms of service (well, I assume they did). What's more, it's a crime, even, so it might well be argued that you'd commit a crime yourself if you came to knew about these sites and did NOT take action against them.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Did they tell you why they thought deleting those sites was illegal? I'd be quite interested in hearing that.
The statement "kiddie porn is banging a young woman" is not entirely true, though. "Banging a young woman is kiddie porn" is, yes, but the way you put it, you'd seem to imply that there are no other kinds of kiddie porn, which just isn't true; I assume that "young woman" does not mean "six-year-old" here, of course, but even if it did, there still would be male children, too, that are also subject to abuse.
Well, if you stick to the letters of that, then obviously, *every* ISP would have to report *immediately* that it can be used to access child porn. Even when they don't know where or how it could be found, the fact that they provide access to the Internet is enough to say with certainty that they can be used, just like a phone company can be used to discuss crimes over the phone.
This may not fit in well with the general slashdot crowd's better-than-thou attitude with regard to anything besides the USA, but I think that would actually be a good idea, basically. The Internet is a crucial piece of infrastructure for the *entire* world, and it should be made sure that noone (neither person nor organization nor country) has too much control/influence over it.
Transferring control of the steering groups to an international not-for-profit organization (whichever one in particular) is the only way to ensure that, and given the important of the Internet in economic and political terms, I think the UN is actually a good choice since it'd make sure that these goals are actually achieved. A mere international organization that's not part of any larger body would likely to be taken over in some way pretty soon.
That being said, I think the FUD spread in many other comments about the UN is just that - FUD. Handle with care, don't feed the trolls, and, most importantly, don't mod them up.
SSL (ideally) gives you the ability to do that, at least. I had one professor (giving network engineering / security classes) who said that at times, he actually called banks etc. whose websites he'd used and asked them to confirm the SSL certificate fingerprints etc. It always confused the hell out of them, but it worked.:)
That is nothing you should worry about - Wikipedia's traffic is much, much higher than that of slashdot, so the idea that Wikipedia could be slashdotted is just as nonsensical as slashdotting, say, Google.
It really depends on what kinds of games you like, of course, but if you like classic point-and-click adventures, I'd really recommend getting ScummVM and some of those old LucasArts classics (you can get those for cheap on eBay, for example). I've got to admit I have no idea how a headmouse works, but if it's anything like a regular mouse in terms of flexibility and immediate control over cursor movement, I think you'll find those very playable. ^^
So you won't mind if I send tons of unwanted email to you and swamp you with spam on AIM and MSN? You have both your email address and your AIM/MSN usernames available for everyone to see (on your livejournal profile), after all...
It's just a gut feeling, but I'm pretty sure they'd actually be able to break even - and more than that.
To use another example, why does iTunes not charge ten times the amount they do for music downloads? If they did, they'd only need 10% of the customers they need now to make the same amount of money. But they don't do that, because they know they would lose far *more* than 90% of their customers that way.
It's the same here. Of course you can't lower prices to *any* amount and still make money, but considering that there are no actual further costs attached to manufacturing the product (files can be copied for free, essentially, as far as the necessary investment is concerned), the price where you can make the most money is very likely to be pretty low.
That's the wrong question to ask, though. The correct ones would be:
1) Are you willing to pay 30 bucks for watching season 2 of "family guy" (on DVD)? 2) Are you willing to pay 5 bucks for watching season 2 of "family guy" (downloading it)?
I'm pretty sure there are many people who would say "Yes" to 2) but "No" to 1), and although it may seem tempting to try and force these people to pay 30 bucks instead of 5 after all, it won't work. Sometimes, lowering your prices is the best way to make more money...
Slashdot Mirror
How is it insane to be required to report child pornography to the police IF YOU ARE NOTIFIED OF IT? RTFA, you don't have to look for it yourself, monitor traffic, or anything like that. Just pass on reports if you happen to get them.
RTFA. You don't have to - you only have to notify the police if someone brings a case to your attention, such as "this and that user of yours is hosting child pornography on the webspace you provide them". There's nothing that says ISPs have to actively hunt for it, monitor anything and so on.
Now you got me curious...
So an image of a person under the age of 16 who does not appear to be under the age of 16 would not be considered child abuse?
Also, what does "appears to be" mean? Does it have to be "active" (so to speak) appearance, as in causing people to believe (or at least assume) that the person is under 16 when they see the picture, or is it enough for people to believe you when you tell them the person is under 16 (even though they might also believe you when you tell them the person is 16 or over)?
What about people who are 16 or over but do not appear to be (in whatever sense)?
That *is* sad, yes - kinda reminds me of the legislative efforts to ban pornographic *drawings* and the like that involved people under the legal age in whatever jurisdiction you happen to be in.
It's a kind of cargo cult, really - people ultimately forget what the original legislation banning child pornography was supposed to accomplish (namely, protecting the actual children involved), and now worship the outlawing of the idea of children in sexual situations as such instead.
The idea that you can convict someone based on newspaper clippings that have an erotic context to them is in the same league, as is the idea that you should outlaw pornography where adults dress up as children (or at least, where some censor thinks they dress up as children).
That just shows again that Canada's actually a sane place, unlike many others. :) Seriously, where I live, the police would file a lawsuit against *me* as well if I reported child pornography directly to them, since by coming across it, I'd most likely have a copy in my browser cache, which would mean I'd be in possession of child porn which is, of course, illegal.
It's really a rather ridiculous thing. *headshakes* Fortunately, there is a system in place where you can anonymously report child porn so that action can be taken against it without you getting a visit from the police as well.
Why would deleting those sites be illegal, though? It's your server, it's free hosting, they're violating your terms of service (well, I assume they did). What's more, it's a crime, even, so it might well be argued that you'd commit a crime yourself if you came to knew about these sites and did NOT take action against them.
Maybe I'm missing something here. Did they tell you why they thought deleting those sites was illegal? I'd be quite interested in hearing that.
Thanks!
The statement "kiddie porn is banging a young woman" is not entirely true, though. "Banging a young woman is kiddie porn" is, yes, but the way you put it, you'd seem to imply that there are no other kinds of kiddie porn, which just isn't true; I assume that "young woman" does not mean "six-year-old" here, of course, but even if it did, there still would be male children, too, that are also subject to abuse.
Well, if you stick to the letters of that, then obviously, *every* ISP would have to report *immediately* that it can be used to access child porn. Even when they don't know where or how it could be found, the fact that they provide access to the Internet is enough to say with certainty that they can be used, just like a phone company can be used to discuss crimes over the phone.
Oh, cry me a river. And yes, the USA *should* give up control of that, too.
This may not fit in well with the general slashdot crowd's better-than-thou attitude with regard to anything besides the USA, but I think that would actually be a good idea, basically. The Internet is a crucial piece of infrastructure for the *entire* world, and it should be made sure that noone (neither person nor organization nor country) has too much control/influence over it. Transferring control of the steering groups to an international not-for-profit organization (whichever one in particular) is the only way to ensure that, and given the important of the Internet in economic and political terms, I think the UN is actually a good choice since it'd make sure that these goals are actually achieved. A mere international organization that's not part of any larger body would likely to be taken over in some way pretty soon. That being said, I think the FUD spread in many other comments about the UN is just that - FUD. Handle with care, don't feed the trolls, and, most importantly, don't mod them up.
Not all, I guess, but if you get to the right person...
SSL (ideally) gives you the ability to do that, at least. I had one professor (giving network engineering / security classes) who said that at times, he actually called banks etc. whose websites he'd used and asked them to confirm the SSL certificate fingerprints etc. It always confused the hell out of them, but it worked. :)
That is nothing you should worry about - Wikipedia's traffic is much, much higher than that of slashdot, so the idea that Wikipedia could be slashdotted is just as nonsensical as slashdotting, say, Google.
2x2 chess... the new reform chess variant?
It really depends on what kinds of games you like, of course, but if you like classic point-and-click adventures, I'd really recommend getting ScummVM and some of those old LucasArts classics (you can get those for cheap on eBay, for example). I've got to admit I have no idea how a headmouse works, but if it's anything like a regular mouse in terms of flexibility and immediate control over cursor movement, I think you'll find those very playable. ^^
I know I shouldn't take the bait, but...
So you won't mind if I send tons of unwanted email to you and swamp you with spam on AIM and MSN? You have both your email address and your AIM/MSN usernames available for everyone to see (on your livejournal profile), after all...
Hey, it's timothy who posted this. What do you expect? :)
Since when is a six-digit UID considered "low" by any standards?
I'm not sure what you're talking about there, myself. I don't see a single banner ad, pop-up, pop-under or whatever.
Granted, I use adblock quite extensively and have a number of filters that caught on here, but still...
Built-in wireless networking? I guess that gives a whole new meaning to wardriving, then.
From a cryptography point of view, that *is* breaking it.
In other news, advertising on Slashdot is now free: just submit your ad as a story, and some editor will post it without even reading it.
It's just a gut feeling, but I'm pretty sure they'd actually be able to break even - and more than that.
To use another example, why does iTunes not charge ten times the amount they do for music downloads? If they did, they'd only need 10% of the customers they need now to make the same amount of money. But they don't do that, because they know they would lose far *more* than 90% of their customers that way.
It's the same here. Of course you can't lower prices to *any* amount and still make money, but considering that there are no actual further costs attached to manufacturing the product (files can be copied for free, essentially, as far as the necessary investment is concerned), the price where you can make the most money is very likely to be pretty low.
But he *could* play it online. :)
That's the wrong question to ask, though. The correct ones would be:
1) Are you willing to pay 30 bucks for watching season 2 of "family guy" (on DVD)?
2) Are you willing to pay 5 bucks for watching season 2 of "family guy" (downloading it)?
I'm pretty sure there are many people who would say "Yes" to 2) but "No" to 1), and although it may seem tempting to try and force these people to pay 30 bucks instead of 5 after all, it won't work. Sometimes, lowering your prices is the best way to make more money...