My reading of the story may be wrong, but I can't find anywhere in it where it says that he was prosecuted. But when kiddie pr0n is involved, all that's needed to thoroughly ruin someone's life is an accusation, much less an arrest. In the U.S. at least, a kiddie pr0n suspect is instantly deemed a monster, the worst of the worst, a social pariah who deserves no sympathy. The public doesn't waste any time wondering about guilt or innocence... they only fantasize about painful and gruesome ways to torture and punish the accused.
Bush didn't start the "warrantless wiretaps". They go back for decades. Clinton used the exact same procedures in tracking drug smugglers. It is accepted law that communications between a U.S. citizen and a foreign country are fair game for law enforcement without a warrant. Sorry, you don't like it? It has stood up in court many times. Franklin D. Roosevelt, hero of liberals around the world, actually started this back in World War II: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=11465 And Congress created the FISA court in 1978 so there would be judicial oversight over these types of intelligence activities. Wiretapping a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without a court order (either before or within 3 days after the execution of the warrant) most certainly has not "stood up in court many times."
I understand you're trying to make this into some sort of Red vs. Blue thing, but I have to say that it's really disheartening to read posts like yours, and see people nonchalantly dismiss Constitutional protections.
The worst part IMHO, is the way they have pretty much left it to the discretion of the prosecutors and judges. I agree with your post, but the reason it is left to the discretion of the prosecutors and the judges is because of current public opinion. 99% of the time any jury in the usa will convict anyone and anything the instant they hear the words "child pornography". They convict people possessing thumbs.db files, they convict people for possessing images of clothed children, and they convict underage teenagers for taking nude pictures of themselves... The media and law enforcement have hyped up child pornography to such an extent that in the public eye, there is little or no difference between someone downloading an image file of a naked 16 year old and actually raping a small child. Common sense in this area of the law has long since disappeared.
The problem I have with Freenet(and why I don't run it anymore) is that it hasn't been tested in US court yet. For those not from here, the US is currently having a "save the childrens from them evil pedos!" witch hunt that makes the red scare look tame. And while I know that Freenet encrypts the cache, I also now that someone with the unlimited funds of the FBI can throw some serious iron at cracking that crypto.
Now I'll admit that I haven't studied Freenet's algorithm for encryption, so I have no idea how much iron it would take to crack it, but considering that a single thumbs.db file can net you ten years in PMITA prison, not to mention destroying any future you may have had before conviction, means that until a US court rules on whether the cache from Freenet is considered an illegal download or not I simply cannot risk my families future on it. Agreed. The current atmosphere in the US towards anything even suspected of being child pr0n is too hysterical and kneejerk to take any risk. Happen to run across a picture of a naked child 3 years ago and immediately delete it? That could cost you five years in federal prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration.
The penalties for child pr0n possession have become insane, and the threshold is very, very low. The definition of what constitutes child pr0n also becomes broader every year. I don't even trust having a picture of anyone 18 on my computer, no matter how innocuous it may appear, or how many layers of clothing they may have on.
It's worse. There ain't no such thing as a 'darknet' to your ISP. If you are in the sort of place that needs Freenet you can be certain your ISP will report you to the government for using freenet. Is Freenet usage that easy to spot? My impression was that it would only appear as encrypted traffic.
Are you watching, George Martin? See? Wriiiite... publish! Seriously. I understand RR may want to polish his next book until it is nice and shiny and perfect, but I think I speak for most Song of Ice and Fire fans when I say I'd rather sleep with a pockmocked whore than be celibate for the rest of my life.
Auto-completing words when writing bullet lists. If you don't end the lines with full-stops, hitting Enter will auto-complete some random word instead of starting a new line. Why in the name of all that is good is auto world-completion on by default anyway?!? Does anyone actually like this feature? The first thing I do on an openoffice install is turn it off.
I also agree that they need to work a lot on bullet lists.
These "ZOMG SCOTUS to fight RIAA in cage match!!!" articles I have seen floating around the tubes seem a bit misleading. Thousands of litigants petition the Supreme Court to grant cert every year, and the court ends up accepting only a few dozen cases.
Although a split among the circuit courts makes it more likely that the SCOTUS will grant cert, it by no means makes it a certainty.
Yes, and the FBI also has an enormous child pornography collection. Obviously law enforcement officials are exempt from these laws while in the course of an investigation.
Well... doesn't that make this whole business illegal then? The laws don't apply to law enforcement officials when they are working in that capacity. For example, an undercover agent is not breaking the law when he buys drugs from someone as part of a bust.
Upon review, the Supreme Court sided with the Eleventh Circuit's ruling and struck down this portion of the act. I believe that is inaccurate. I know the Supreme Court has heard the case, but I don't think they have written the opinion yet. The link on wikipedia is to the respondent's brief, not the Court's decision.
The best example, which unfortunately I can't find a link to right now, is two minors, boyfriend and girlfriend, (they were in the 16-17 range) sent each other naked pictures of themselves via the Internet. This got found out and they were charged with possession, production and distribution of child pornography and sentenced to prison. This was then upheld on appeal. Yes, that's right, kids sentenced to jail and will be labeled as sex offenders for life for taking naked pictures of their own bodies. This is what I think you are referring to:
http://www.news.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
From TFA:
When anyone visited the upload.sytes.net site, the FBI recorded the Internet Protocol address of the remote computer. There's no evidence the referring site was recorded as well, meaning the FBI couldn't tell if the visitor found the links through Ranchi or another source such as an e-mail message.
all the evidence is there... he destroyed two hard drives while the agents were at his house, and he did have some thumbnail images... c'mon the man is guilty... no sympathy from me, I only hope they beat him up too Read the article. There were two counts alleging that the suspect destroyed evidence. He was found not guilty by the jury on one, and the judge threw the other one out. So unless you believe he is guilty until proven innocent, and then still guilty, then that's not a reason to hope for violence. Feel free to advocate violence because the guy possessed two thumbnail images.
I'll get a folder and write "CHILD PORN. HOT TOT ACTION" on it then I'll walk around trying to hand it to people while saying "This is child porn." Anyone that takes it from me will be instantly arrested and charged. I bet I could trap plenty of random people. Except that if you weren't actually employed by the FBI, you could be arrested yourself. The "pandering" provision of the PROTECT Act makes it illegal to claim you have child pornography, even if you don't.
While this particular investigation may not raise many eyebrows, this could be a very bad precedent for future investigations. Once courts and juries routinely accept that clicking on links believed to be child porn=being a child pornographer=molesting children, anything goes. Literally anyone could be tricked into being directed to such a link. You'd have blanket permission for the Feds to get a search warrant for anyone they want, and no one would dare question it, for even questioning child pornography laws instantly draws suspicion.
A search warrant based on clicking links is very troubling. Before obtaining the warrant there was no evidence whatsoever that the suspect had ever even viewed child pornography, and of course the link the Feds provided didn't actually link to any.
The war on child pornography is expanding every year. More police are hired to investigate it, more funds are allocated for it, and penalties are made ever-harsher. In Arizona it's up to 10 years for each picture someone possesses. Other states consider burning pictures to a CD to be "manufacturing". People are being sentenced to 10, 20, even 200 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/6399471.stm) years in prison for possessing pictures.
At some point you have to wonder whether the damage this zealousness causes (throwing college students in jail for decades for possessing some pictures) is worth the benefits. The argument that child porn possessors are creating a market for the material grows ever more tenuous, as fewer investigations seem to be centered around people who pay or provide other compensation for child pornography, but rather are focused on downloaders and traders. Unfortunately, it seems there will be no rational discussion about these investigation techniques or the laws themselves anytime soon, since it seems that there is an army of millions who froth at the mouth anytime they hear the words "child pornography" and cannot or will not draw distinctions between viewing pictures and videos and actually committing sexual abuse.
Exposing a child to an unclothed human body (of an adult) is horrible parenting and can certainly be psychogically damaging... As a juvenile court judge for over 14 years... I weep for our judicial system. Nudity in and of itself shouldn't be damaging. Shocking, maybe. Repulsive, probably. But if simple nudity can be considered psychologically damaging in the long-term, then that tells me that there is something wrong with our society as a whole, not with parents or television or the internet or whatever.
I hate to break this to you, your honor, but we are all naked under our clothes. Your example of a woman saving herself for marriage is completely absurd. Are you seriously arguing that a woman should be able to not know what a male body looks like until she is married? Should we cut out anatomical diagrams from textbooks? You not arguing for for freedom of choice... you are arguing that all of society should tiptoe around in case some individual wants to remain completely ignorant of basic human knowledge.
Whatever happened to *REAL* police work? Every time they come up with some way to "control/solve" crimes, it winds up being a way to make the job of a cop as easy as pushing a button. Even worse, it is increasingly common in the US for police to create crimes in order to lure criminals. Police across the country sit around in internet chat rooms and pose as fake 14 year old girls. They post fake craigslist ads trying to find potential johns and arrest them for soliciting prostitution. They place "abandoned" purses on benches in the subway hoping that someone will pick them up (operation "lucky bag" in NYC).
Cops hate chasing after dangerous criminals and walking the beat (can't say I blame them). These days, they prefer policework that can be done on the internet while sitting behind a desk, or sting operations where they create everything needed to convict except for the potential criminal itself. It's lazy, it's counterproductive, and it's wrong but it sure does increase the arrest and conviction stats, so these types of operations continue to get increased funding and praise.
Their refusal to support the Second Amendment is just the cherry on top. Refusal to support the Second Amendment? Again you post unfounded lies and misinformation. I hope no one reads your misguided posts and mistakes them for the truth.
I've stated elsewhere in this thread that I have no cites. However, I do know that they recently supported it in Texas, and all the news articles mentioned how unusual that is. That should count for something, I'd think. I'm not sure what that counts for, but it should hardly be a basis for having a "problem" with them. You find their position hypocritical because they don't put 2nd Amendment concerns above all others?
You should ask yourself why you have a problem with an organization that defends any part of the Bill of Rights.
I never said that they claimed there was anything wrong with it, just that in general they won't support it. Have you offered any evidence to support your claim that the ACLU refuses to support and defend the 2nd Amendment?
The saying is that Sweden is a nice place to live, but it's no place to get rich. Well then. If you don't have an opportunity to get filthy rich, what's the point of living?
Slashdot Mirror
I understand you're trying to make this into some sort of Red vs. Blue thing, but I have to say that it's really disheartening to read posts like yours, and see people nonchalantly dismiss Constitutional protections.
The penalties for child pr0n possession have become insane, and the threshold is very, very low. The definition of what constitutes child pr0n also becomes broader every year. I don't even trust having a picture of anyone 18 on my computer, no matter how innocuous it may appear, or how many layers of clothing they may have on.
These "ZOMG SCOTUS to fight RIAA in cage match!!!" articles I have seen floating around the tubes seem a bit misleading. Thousands of litigants petition the Supreme Court to grant cert every year, and the court ends up accepting only a few dozen cases.
Although a split among the circuit courts makes it more likely that the SCOTUS will grant cert, it by no means makes it a certainty.
Yes, and the FBI also has an enormous child pornography collection. Obviously law enforcement officials are exempt from these laws while in the course of an investigation.
*Sigh* RTFA. He was found not guilty of destroying the drives.
While this particular investigation may not raise many eyebrows, this could be a very bad precedent for future investigations. Once courts and juries routinely accept that clicking on links believed to be child porn=being a child pornographer=molesting children, anything goes. Literally anyone could be tricked into being directed to such a link. You'd have blanket permission for the Feds to get a search warrant for anyone they want, and no one would dare question it, for even questioning child pornography laws instantly draws suspicion.
A search warrant based on clicking links is very troubling. Before obtaining the warrant there was no evidence whatsoever that the suspect had ever even viewed child pornography, and of course the link the Feds provided didn't actually link to any.
The war on child pornography is expanding every year. More police are hired to investigate it, more funds are allocated for it, and penalties are made ever-harsher. In Arizona it's up to 10 years for each picture someone possesses. Other states consider burning pictures to a CD to be "manufacturing". People are being sentenced to 10, 20, even 200 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/6399471.stm) years in prison for possessing pictures.
At some point you have to wonder whether the damage this zealousness causes (throwing college students in jail for decades for possessing some pictures) is worth the benefits. The argument that child porn possessors are creating a market for the material grows ever more tenuous, as fewer investigations seem to be centered around people who pay or provide other compensation for child pornography, but rather are focused on downloaders and traders. Unfortunately, it seems there will be no rational discussion about these investigation techniques or the laws themselves anytime soon, since it seems that there is an army of millions who froth at the mouth anytime they hear the words "child pornography" and cannot or will not draw distinctions between viewing pictures and videos and actually committing sexual abuse.
I hate to break this to you, your honor, but we are all naked under our clothes. Your example of a woman saving herself for marriage is completely absurd. Are you seriously arguing that a woman should be able to not know what a male body looks like until she is married? Should we cut out anatomical diagrams from textbooks? You not arguing for for freedom of choice... you are arguing that all of society should tiptoe around in case some individual wants to remain completely ignorant of basic human knowledge.
Simple nudity is not pornography.
Cops hate chasing after dangerous criminals and walking the beat (can't say I blame them). These days, they prefer policework that can be done on the internet while sitting behind a desk, or sting operations where they create everything needed to convict except for the potential criminal itself. It's lazy, it's counterproductive, and it's wrong but it sure does increase the arrest and conviction stats, so these types of operations continue to get increased funding and praise.
You should ask yourself why you have a problem with an organization that defends any part of the Bill of Rights.
I count three:
1. terrorism (boogedy-boogedy!)
2. kiddie pr0n (think of the children!)
3. fraud (oh no, my precious inbox is filled with spam!)
What's number four?