No. Google should turn in the IP address of a specific Orkut account that posted an announcement for the auction of the virginity of a ten-year-old, with nude pictures of her.
Yes, they should. As they should also turn in the IP address of a known terrorist who recently murdered innocent civilians. I believe the above posters point (and if not, it's my point) is that just as terrorism is not necessarily a black and white issue, kiddie porn is not necessarily a black and white issue. Just as a government investigation of terrorism may either be tracking down Bin Laden or monitoring harmless political activists, an investigation into kiddie porn could be looking for an auction of the virginity of a ten-year-old, or could be relating to a naked picture of a seventeen year old that she posted online herself.
Does the poster believe thate people have the right to flout thier obligation to hand over evidence demanded by the governmnet or by the orther party in a civil proceeding.
In general, defendants retain more rights in a criminal proceeding as compared to a civil proceeding (in the usa).
When a cop knocks on your door with a warrant to search your residence for illegal drugs, do you think you are obligated to tell the cop the location of any illegal items in your house? Of course not! That's why it's called a search warrant. You can't stop the police from searching, but you certainly don't have any obligation to tell them anything. You have the right to remain silent.
If the cops want to search your encrypted files, fine. If they want to try and brute-force them, I say go for it. However, I don't see why the fifth amendment should have an asterisk exception in small-print reading: "doesn't apply in cases of computer crime and encryption keys".
The Government have noticed this 'loophole' and are seeking to increase the penalty for failing to provide a key to five years where there is a strong suspicion of kiddie porn.
That's interesting, and also rather frightening. Put another way, someone could be imprisoned for five years based merely upon the suspicion of having committed a crime.
If you were wandering about the difference between baby pics and paedophile photographs, it's to do with intent. work it out.
I'm confused. Intent of the photographer, or intent of the viewer of the photograph?
Should pictures of naked babies be illegal? How about if a paedophile took a picture of a naked baby? What about a picture of a naked baby sitting on the lap of a naked man?
a few cells constitute a living, breathing and sentient human being!
They do! I even consider my sperm to be half a human. That's why I refuse to dispose of any of my man goo. I have it all collected in buckets in my closet. Would you kill a man with no legs?
These think-of-the-children laws are getting so out of control. It's nothing more than blind hysteria fueled by constant media drum-beating and politicians in search of easy votes.
Given how many users there are on the social networking sites such as Myspace, this online predator problem isn't really a problem at all. Seriously, how many kids have actually suffered as a result of a social-networking site? Sure, the politicians will drag out a teary story of a 16 year old that was abducted two years ago by a guy she met online, but it's a social-networking site, and you can't expect any social interaction between large groups of humans to occur without any issues. We can stop the number of stranger rapes that occur by not allowed people to leave their homes, but is it worth it?
Haven for sexual predators? Part of the problem is that they consider people who lust after 16 year old girls predators. If that is the definition, then they are going to have an endless supply of "online sexual predators" to catch.
It's sickening what this Congress is able to pass into law under the guise of thinking of the children. Unfortunately it seems like it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Good job old chap! I love how you not only brought up the spectre of (gasp!) kiddie porn, but you also mentioned that it was moved by a "known sex offender". If it was just some random dude downloading kiddie porn over your network, your post wouldn't have been nearly as effective.
Too bad there wasn't a way you could have worked terrorism into your post. Then you would have had a United States fear trifecta!
For example: "Suppose an Islamic terrorist on the sex offender registry began moving child porn and terrorist bomb-making instructions over YOUR wireless network."
just cause you didnt see it doesnt meen no one was hurt. Say one of those 591 cases was someone who didnt want to pay thier property taxes... no on hurt right? What if because of low funds your town had to let a snow-plow driver go... then that winter someone gets in an accident that they wouldnt have if the town had just that one extra snow-plow on the road... someone was hurt, you just didnt see it in court.
Wow, that's a stretch. Here's another scenario: let's say that person did pay their property taxes, and the town ended up with a budget surplus, and because of that they hired an extra snow-plow driver, but that snow-plow driver turned out to be a bit off in the head, and he likes to run over little puppies and small children with his snow plow, and he runs someone over. Someone was hurt because the other person paid their property taxes.
Can't our esteemed beloved leader Mr. Bush just sign this bill from Congress into law with a signing statement saying that he doesn't necessarily have to follow it?
That's really how things work, right? Check and balances are a throwback to pre-21st century America: they're quaint and cute, but they don't actually apply.
yet it became law because nobody in Congress read the proposed legislation prior to the vote to approve--there simply wasn't time to do so
What was the excuse for the renewal of the Patriot Act in March of this year? Do members of congress need longer than four and a half years to read it?
The final outcome my wife got to spend about 36 hours in jail plus five years probated sentence for conspiracy to traffic and I got to spend about 6 hours in jail
Well, I'm glad they got you evil drug-dealers off the street for a little while at least.
Seriously, the system is so broken, corrupt, and backwards that sometimes it feels like America has gone through the looking glass. I'd mod you up if I could; very interesting, thanks for sharing.
The "war on drugs" has indeed been very effective in chipping away at our rights, but I was specifically thinking of internet-related government monitoring, where in most cases the "OMG evil-doer drug-pushers!" excuse isn't very effective.
Then again, when cops raid a house for drugs, they usually confiscate the computer equipment, the rationale being that the computer could be used to store drug-dealing information. So who knows. Good TJ quote, by the way.
Not entirely sure what you are getting at (the bill of rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and you can add amendments to the Constitution, but you supposedly can't change the wording of the existing amendments, for example see amendments XVIII and XXI concerning prohibition).
I was referring to the fact that the current administration pretty much blatantly violated the 4th Amendment by listening to U.S. citizen's phone calls without a warrant, and not a damn thing has been done about it. A handful of senators went on talk-shows and threw out a few talking-points, but nothing was done. The last I had heard, they were going to alter the wire-tapping laws retroactively so that the administration's illegal eavesdropping would *sha-zam!* be a-ok.
The constitution is like a bad-ass pair of nunchaukus. It looks kick-ass, but unless the person that wields it knows how to use it, it's pretty much useless.
Is this giving them authorization to look without warrants? If so, it's unlawful. No amount of legislation, short of amending the Bill of Rights, will give them this authority.
Yeah, right on! Just like if the government tried to listen in on our phone conversations without a warrant, it would be totally unlawful. There's no way that would ever fly. Oh wait. Unless it's an overseas call, I guess. Or maybe a domestic call. But still... Bill of Rights! Hell yeah!
...but this legislation or something very similar to it will pass. The fbi/U.S. government has discovered just how easy and effective it is to monitor citizens over the internet. Since so much of our daily life now occurs over the "tubes" of the internet (banking, purchasing, social-networking, entertainment, phone-calls, etc.), it makes it all too simple for the government to assemble detailed files on citizens just by eavesdropping on their net connection.
Sure, at first the feds/police will need to get warrants, but eventually that requirement too will fade away. The eye of Big Brother in every room will be present in the form of our internet connections. It is so pathetically easy for the government to get monitoring power over our online lives; all they have to do is repeat three words over and over again. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. That's it. If they keep repeating those three words, any legislation they want will glide right through Congress.
It's amazing what media-hysteria can accomplish. There are millions of children without healthcare in the U.S., and Congress thinks it is a matter of the highest priority to worry about this overblown "OMG think of the children!!!" crap.
In addition, politicians proposed a slew of related measures this week, including blocking access to off-color Web sites for all Americans, dispatching "search and destroy" bots that would seek out illegal content, regulating search engines and targeting peer-to-peer networks.
Oh, great. That will work out well. Internet censorship ala China, here we come!
Yes, how could police officers going onto your private property and testing your doors to see if they are locked possibly be a bad thing?
I actually have a local policeman that comes into my house at night and makes sure I place my wallet in a secure location before I go to sleep. He also checks all the window-blinds to make sure no terrorists or pedophiles can see into our windows. Recently, I put in a request for a uniformed officer to monitor my children while they draw pictures; I wouldn't want them to poke themselves in the eye with a crayon.
Given the state of affairs today, I'd prefer everyone be required to pass a proficiency test and receive a license to use a computer.
Agreed. Computers are very, very dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands. If there was some way we could pour money into a complicated beuraucratic licensing system, I'd be all for it.
I'd take having my browsing habits looked into before I'd take having my house snuck into while im on vacation so that the FBI can take snapshots of all my hard drives.
Ooo, a government abuse-of-power comparison game! What fun!
My turn:
I'd rather have the government sneak into my house while I'm on vacation than have my family whisked away to a detention camp and killed.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the poster believe thate people have the right to flout thier obligation to hand over evidence demanded by the governmnet or by the orther party in a civil proceeding.
In general, defendants retain more rights in a criminal proceeding as compared to a civil proceeding (in the usa).
When a cop knocks on your door with a warrant to search your residence for illegal drugs, do you think you are obligated to tell the cop the location of any illegal items in your house? Of course not! That's why it's called a search warrant. You can't stop the police from searching, but you certainly don't have any obligation to tell them anything. You have the right to remain silent.
If the cops want to search your encrypted files, fine. If they want to try and brute-force them, I say go for it. However, I don't see why the fifth amendment should have an asterisk exception in small-print reading: "doesn't apply in cases of computer crime and encryption keys".
The Government have noticed this 'loophole' and are seeking to increase the penalty for failing to provide a key to five years where there is a strong suspicion of kiddie porn.
That's interesting, and also rather frightening. Put another way, someone could be imprisoned for five years based merely upon the suspicion of having committed a crime.
I'm confused. Intent of the photographer, or intent of the viewer of the photograph?
Should pictures of naked babies be illegal? How about if a paedophile took a picture of a naked baby? What about a picture of a naked baby sitting on the lap of a naked man?
Good point. That would be really easy to do, right? There must be tons of them.
They do! I even consider my sperm to be half a human. That's why I refuse to dispose of any of my man goo. I have it all collected in buckets in my closet. Would you kill a man with no legs?
These think-of-the-children laws are getting so out of control. It's nothing more than blind hysteria fueled by constant media drum-beating and politicians in search of easy votes.
Given how many users there are on the social networking sites such as Myspace, this online predator problem isn't really a problem at all. Seriously, how many kids have actually suffered as a result of a social-networking site? Sure, the politicians will drag out a teary story of a 16 year old that was abducted two years ago by a guy she met online, but it's a social-networking site, and you can't expect any social interaction between large groups of humans to occur without any issues. We can stop the number of stranger rapes that occur by not allowed people to leave their homes, but is it worth it?
Haven for sexual predators? Part of the problem is that they consider people who lust after 16 year old girls predators. If that is the definition, then they are going to have an endless supply of "online sexual predators" to catch.
It's sickening what this Congress is able to pass into law under the guise of thinking of the children. Unfortunately it seems like it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Good job old chap! I love how you not only brought up the spectre of (gasp!) kiddie porn, but you also mentioned that it was moved by a "known sex offender". If it was just some random dude downloading kiddie porn over your network, your post wouldn't have been nearly as effective.
Too bad there wasn't a way you could have worked terrorism into your post. Then you would have had a United States fear trifecta!
For example:
"Suppose an Islamic terrorist on the sex offender registry began moving child porn and terrorist bomb-making instructions over YOUR wireless network."
NSA warrantless wiretapping probe?
Wow, that's a stretch. Here's another scenario: let's say that person did pay their property taxes, and the town ended up with a budget surplus, and because of that they hired an extra snow-plow driver, but that snow-plow driver turned out to be a bit off in the head, and he likes to run over little puppies and small children with his snow plow, and he runs someone over. Someone was hurt because the other person paid their property taxes.
Can't our esteemed beloved leader Mr. Bush just sign this bill from Congress into law with a signing statement saying that he doesn't necessarily have to follow it?
That's really how things work, right? Check and balances are a throwback to pre-21st century America: they're quaint and cute, but they don't actually apply.
To me, this is a clear signs of Linux finally making a long expected breakthrough into common desktops.
Yes, how can anyone doubt that 2007 will be the year of linux on the desktop?
yet it became law because nobody in Congress read the proposed legislation prior to the vote to approve--there simply wasn't time to do so
What was the excuse for the renewal of the Patriot Act in March of this year? Do members of congress need longer than four and a half years to read it?
It is. We are free to do anything the government tells us we can do.
The final outcome my wife got to spend about 36 hours in jail plus five years probated sentence for conspiracy to traffic and I got to spend about 6 hours in jail
Well, I'm glad they got you evil drug-dealers off the street for a little while at least.
Seriously, the system is so broken, corrupt, and backwards that sometimes it feels like America has gone through the looking glass. I'd mod you up if I could; very interesting, thanks for sharing.
The "war on drugs" has indeed been very effective in chipping away at our rights, but I was specifically thinking of internet-related government monitoring, where in most cases the "OMG evil-doer drug-pushers!" excuse isn't very effective.
Then again, when cops raid a house for drugs, they usually confiscate the computer equipment, the rationale being that the computer could be used to store drug-dealing information. So who knows. Good TJ quote, by the way.
Not entirely sure what you are getting at (the bill of rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, and you can add amendments to the Constitution, but you supposedly can't change the wording of the existing amendments, for example see amendments XVIII and XXI concerning prohibition).
I was referring to the fact that the current administration pretty much blatantly violated the 4th Amendment by listening to U.S. citizen's phone calls without a warrant, and not a damn thing has been done about it. A handful of senators went on talk-shows and threw out a few talking-points, but nothing was done. The last I had heard, they were going to alter the wire-tapping laws retroactively so that the administration's illegal eavesdropping would *sha-zam!* be a-ok.
The constitution is like a bad-ass pair of nunchaukus. It looks kick-ass, but unless the person that wields it knows how to use it, it's pretty much useless.
Yeah, right on! Just like if the government tried to listen in on our phone conversations without a warrant, it would be totally unlawful. There's no way that would ever fly. Oh wait. Unless it's an overseas call, I guess. Or maybe a domestic call. But still... Bill of Rights! Hell yeah!
...but this legislation or something very similar to it will pass. The fbi/U.S. government has discovered just how easy and effective it is to monitor citizens over the internet. Since so much of our daily life now occurs over the "tubes" of the internet (banking, purchasing, social-networking, entertainment, phone-calls, etc.), it makes it all too simple for the government to assemble detailed files on citizens just by eavesdropping on their net connection.
Sure, at first the feds/police will need to get warrants, but eventually that requirement too will fade away. The eye of Big Brother in every room will be present in the form of our internet connections. It is so pathetically easy for the government to get monitoring power over our online lives; all they have to do is repeat three words over and over again. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. Terrorism, child porn. That's it. If they keep repeating those three words, any legislation they want will glide right through Congress.
Fat people wearing american flag t-shirts and holding a television remote in their hands outnumber us 1000 to 1.
It's amazing what media-hysteria can accomplish. There are millions of children without healthcare in the U.S., and Congress thinks it is a matter of the highest priority to worry about this overblown "OMG think of the children!!!" crap.
In addition, politicians proposed a slew of related measures this week, including blocking access to off-color Web sites for all Americans, dispatching "search and destroy" bots that would seek out illegal content, regulating search engines and targeting peer-to-peer networks.
Oh, great. That will work out well. Internet censorship ala China, here we come!
Yes, how could police officers going onto your private property and testing your doors to see if they are locked possibly be a bad thing?
I actually have a local policeman that comes into my house at night and makes sure I place my wallet in a secure location before I go to sleep. He also checks all the window-blinds to make sure no terrorists or pedophiles can see into our windows. Recently, I put in a request for a uniformed officer to monitor my children while they draw pictures; I wouldn't want them to poke themselves in the eye with a crayon.
Agreed. Computers are very, very dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands. If there was some way we could pour money into a complicated beuraucratic licensing system, I'd be all for it.
My turn:
I'd rather have the government sneak into my house while I'm on vacation than have my family whisked away to a detention camp and killed.
Don't justify the bad with the worse.
Also, consider running a tor server to help out the network.