Wouldn't it make more sense to arrest people if and when they actually harm a child?
Oh, but arresting people for thought-crimes and future-crimes is so much more fun. Easier too!
Seriously though, what's scary to me is how little discretion the cops/prosecutors use when arresting people for CP-related crimes. They arrest underage teens for sending out nude pictures of themselves!
People always assume that everyone arrested for CP is a 50-year-old guy in a trenchcoat looking at pictures of babies being raped. Not so. There are so many cops working on these cases that they bust everyone they can find.
I've been using the interweb since 1998 when I was 13, and I have been exposed to child pornography since day one.
The way these draconian laws are designed, you should be thrown into jail for a very long time. Every child you saw in those pictures, you have personally exploited (or so the theory seems to go). Busting the creeps who take the pictures makes sense to me; busting the saps that look at the pictures seems absurd.
Go to webshots.com and search for "cheer camp shower". Need I say more?
Oh noezz!! A scary intraweb predator is going to see a picture of girls in bikinis and track them all down and rape and kill them! Everyone panic!!! We need more laws and restrictions, quick!
Need I say more?
Yes, please do, because I don't know what the hell your point is.
The nice thing about dealing with verizon is that the U.S. government will archive all of your conversations for free! Of course, you may not be able to access them, but it's nice to know there are backups out there somewhere.
if you're going to sit around and just carp about privacy policies rather than demanding serious reforms AND regulations in the laws governing personal information then thats exactly what you are...
Good point, but did you see American Idol this season? It was awesome!
unjust laws shouldn't be unenforced. They should be stricken from the books.
Yes, I agree. However, with our government it is extremely difficult to repeal any criminal laws once they are on the books, because politicians are afraid they will appear soft on crime. Despite significant public outcry, it took years and years for New York to make any changes to the draconian Rockefeller drug laws, and the changes that they did manage to push through the legislature were mostly cosmetic.
The problem is that drone technology will advance much faster than the ability of our government to change the existing laws. Thus, by enforcing the laws on the books, many more people will get caught up in the net of law enforcement (not to mention the fact that many states do not allow convicted felons to vote, which will only exasperate the problem).
What is so frightening about the data that the NSA/FBI is gathering about U.S. citizens is that while they claim it will solely be used to look for terrorists today, next year they will be using it to look for drug dealers, then file-sharers, then political "radicals", etc.
The Patriot Act was supposedly passed to help law enforcement in their fight against terrorism, but it didn't take long before it was being used in the "war on drugs". When the Patriot Act was renewed recently, they added a provision about methamphetamine.
In Attorney General Gonzo's own words:
Importantly, the legislation provides additional tools for protecting our mass transportation systems and seaports from attack; takes steps to combat the methamphetamine epidemic that is sweeping our country; and closes dangerous loopholes in our ability to prevent terrorist financing.
It is scary how this was packaged up under the "terrorism-oogity-boogity-label". This may all seem a bit off-topic, but it demonstrates that the government is willing and able to lump other issues into the terrorism catch-all.
Do you want to pay $100 a month for your 10Mb broadband connection?
Hell yes. I would much rather pay $100 a month to access the internet unrestricted than to have my ISP decide which websites are going to be fast and which will be slow.
I'd like to know if this is an intentional distortion perpetuated by the telecoms, or if this is an honest misunderstanding?
How dare you sir! The telecoms are trustworthy, honorable companies. They would never intentionally release distorted information to increase their profits. Anyone back me up on this?
Everyone who uses encryption is a terrorist and/or a child molester. If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
Personally, I videotape all my daily activities and archive them in case a law enforcement agency wants to know what I was up to on a particular date. I suggest you all do the same. Think of the children and 9/11!!!
Don't fall into the american media delusion that in order to be fair and balanced, you must present both sides of every story. If there was a story about the government proposing to chop off baby heads and offer them as a sacrifice to satan, would it be necessary to present both sides of the debate?
"Chopping off baby-heads? Why, that's insane!" or, "How do we know that offering baby-heads to satan won't solve all our problems?"
Must we link and quote from both articles? And yes, handing the internet over to the telecoms to devour is just that crazy.
No, we defend the 2nd amendment because we're deluded into thinking it's useful, and when we get all worked up about the 2nd amendment we tend to ignore every other issue.
I f.ckin do not believe how you, u.s. people can ALLOW for such debate to even take place
We (the U.S. people) have about as much control over our political system as we do over how fast the earth rotates around the sun. Don't blame us, our democracy's broken.
When it comes to the U.S. Congress, 100,000 calls, letters, and emails from citizens are worth far less than one golf game with a lobbyist
I have no objections to the NSA data mining published information (we might change the line to "publish AND perish"). In fact, I think that they should make it very public that they will study social networks and relationships in just the way that this article describes. To get around the logic, terrorists would need to diversify their social interactions, interacting with more non-terrorists than terrorists in order to escape suspicion. I believe very strongly that building relationships is the best way to achieve cross-cultural understanding and peace. It is very possible that terror supporters could change their lives for the better when they enter into new relationships originally designed to avoid detection. If that results from a project of this nature, it could well be to the benefit of all humanity.
It should help decrease real, potential threats like school shootings and child molesters.
Hmmm potential threats... I love it. Let's get those criminals before they commit crimes. It's just too bad we can't tap into the heads of citizens and arrest them based on their thoughts. Go thought-crimes!
How many times have you heard myspace on the news in a negative way?
So true man. I've heard a lot of bad things about Aruba too. How come we let Aruba murder our innocent vacationing students? Someone should put a stop to it, bomb Aruba or something.
They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services.
Yes, they want to "upgrade" the infrastructure so they can offer us high-speeds to movie download sites where we can have the pleasure of paying $20 for a DRM-crippled, advertisement-laden hollywood suckfest.
I don't want the internet to be super-duper holy-hell fast if the only sites available at that speed are the corporate-partnered crappy ones. I don't want a fast connection to some mega-corp site which only wants to charge me more money for whatever poop they're flinging.
Want to create new networks? Have more competition. Most people in the U.S. call themselves lucky if they can choose between two ISPs in their area.
A tiered internet is good for the corporate fat-cats, and no one else. John A. Boehner can suck it.
I was very disappointed (although not very surprised) to find that the COPE Act passed by a wide margin (269 to 152) without the net neutrality provision. Does anyone know of an easy way to find out how our respective representatives voted on it?
I know, I know, I should have contacted my reps before now... I only contacted my senators. But I want to find out who these telecom-penis sucking bastards are so I make sure I never vote for any of them.
I'm confused... what does this have to do with the 2nd amendment again?
If we should be allowed to possess guns to keep our potentially tyrannical government at bay, wouldn't it be even better if we could possess all sorts of home-made bombs and grenades? Hell, if we all possessed small nuclear explosive devices we could really keep Washington on it's toes (just a joke, FBI guys, call off the helicopters).
Slashdot Mirror
Warner Brothers has announced a payment plan; it seems quite reasonable, and should help to stem the tide of illegal movie downloading.
$1.95/per min for the first five minutes, and $5.95 for each additional minute!*
*newer/popular titles may not fall under this pricing plan.
Oh, but arresting people for thought-crimes and future-crimes is so much more fun. Easier too!
Seriously though, what's scary to me is how little discretion the cops/prosecutors use when arresting people for CP-related crimes. They arrest underage teens for sending out nude pictures of themselves!
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlif
People always assume that everyone arrested for CP is a 50-year-old guy in a trenchcoat looking at pictures of babies being raped. Not so. There are so many cops working on these cases that they bust everyone they can find.
Apples, oranges, pears, and bananas here people. Truecrypt is a fantastic program, but how in the world would it be easier to:
encrypt your data in a small volume and attach it as a file to who you want to send it to...
How would they know the passphrase to open your attachment? That's the whole point of the public/private key system.
Oh, lordy.
The Democrats are more fascist (yes, I know what the word means) and inept than the Republicans will ever be.
That's some funny sh*t. Say it again, it makes me laugh.
I don't want the children to have healthcare
Who does? Let those little brats fend for themselves.
Go to webshots.com and search for "cheer camp shower". Need I say more?
Oh noezz!! A scary intraweb predator is going to see a picture of girls in bikinis and track them all down and rape and kill them! Everyone panic!!! We need more laws and restrictions, quick!
Need I say more?
Yes, please do, because I don't know what the hell your point is.
The nice thing about dealing with verizon is that the U.S. government will archive all of your conversations for free! Of course, you may not be able to access them, but it's nice to know there are backups out there somewhere.
if you're going to sit around and just carp about privacy policies rather than demanding serious reforms AND regulations in the laws governing personal information then thats exactly what you are...
Good point, but did you see American Idol this season? It was awesome!
unjust laws shouldn't be unenforced. They should be stricken from the books.
Yes, I agree. However, with our government it is extremely difficult to repeal any criminal laws once they are on the books, because politicians are afraid they will appear soft on crime. Despite significant public outcry, it took years and years for New York to make any changes to the draconian Rockefeller drug laws, and the changes that they did manage to push through the legislature were mostly cosmetic.
The problem is that drone technology will advance much faster than the ability of our government to change the existing laws. Thus, by enforcing the laws on the books, many more people will get caught up in the net of law enforcement (not to mention the fact that many states do not allow convicted felons to vote, which will only exasperate the problem).
What is so frightening about the data that the NSA/FBI is gathering about U.S. citizens is that while they claim it will solely be used to look for terrorists today, next year they will be using it to look for drug dealers, then file-sharers, then political "radicals", etc.
The Patriot Act was supposedly passed to help law enforcement in their fight against terrorism, but it didn't take long before it was being used in the "war on drugs". When the Patriot Act was renewed recently, they added a provision about methamphetamine.
In Attorney General Gonzo's own words: Importantly, the legislation provides additional tools for protecting our mass transportation systems and seaports from attack; takes steps to combat the methamphetamine epidemic that is sweeping our country; and closes dangerous loopholes in our ability to prevent terrorist financing.
It is scary how this was packaged up under the "terrorism-oogity-boogity-label". This may all seem a bit off-topic, but it demonstrates that the government is willing and able to lump other issues into the terrorism catch-all.
Do you want to pay $100 a month for your 10Mb broadband connection? Hell yes. I would much rather pay $100 a month to access the internet unrestricted than to have my ISP decide which websites are going to be fast and which will be slow.
I'd like to know if this is an intentional distortion perpetuated by the telecoms, or if this is an honest misunderstanding?
How dare you sir! The telecoms are trustworthy, honorable companies. They would never intentionally release distorted information to increase their profits. Anyone back me up on this?
Anyone know if the worm is able to wiggle into users with limited accounts?
Everyone who uses encryption is a terrorist and/or a child molester. If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
Personally, I videotape all my daily activities and archive them in case a law enforcement agency wants to know what I was up to on a particular date. I suggest you all do the same. Think of the children and 9/11!!!
Don't fall into the american media delusion that in order to be fair and balanced, you must present both sides of every story. If there was a story about the government proposing to chop off baby heads and offer them as a sacrifice to satan, would it be necessary to present both sides of the debate?
"Chopping off baby-heads? Why, that's insane!"
or,
"How do we know that offering baby-heads to satan won't solve all our problems?"
Must we link and quote from both articles? And yes, handing the internet over to the telecoms to devour is just that crazy.
No, we defend the 2nd amendment because we're deluded into thinking it's useful, and when we get all worked up about the 2nd amendment we tend to ignore every other issue.
I f.ckin do not believe how you, u.s. people can ALLOW for such debate to even take place
We (the U.S. people) have about as much control over our political system as we do over how fast the earth rotates around the sun. Don't blame us, our democracy's broken.
When it comes to the U.S. Congress, 100,000 calls, letters, and emails from citizens are worth far less than one golf game with a lobbyist
It should help decrease real, potential threats like school shootings and child molesters.
Hmmm potential threats... I love it. Let's get those criminals before they commit crimes. It's just too bad we can't tap into the heads of citizens and arrest them based on their thoughts. Go thought-crimes!
How many times have you heard myspace on the news in a negative way?
So true man. I've heard a lot of bad things about Aruba too. How come we let Aruba murder our innocent vacationing students? Someone should put a stop to it, bomb Aruba or something.
What a bunch of horseshit.
They may want to exclusively partner with other firms to help them reach new customers and ultimately create superior services.
Yes, they want to "upgrade" the infrastructure so they can offer us high-speeds to movie download sites where we can have the pleasure of paying $20 for a DRM-crippled, advertisement-laden hollywood suckfest.
I don't want the internet to be super-duper holy-hell fast if the only sites available at that speed are the corporate-partnered crappy ones. I don't want a fast connection to some mega-corp site which only wants to charge me more money for whatever poop they're flinging.
Want to create new networks? Have more competition. Most people in the U.S. call themselves lucky if they can choose between two ISPs in their area.
A tiered internet is good for the corporate fat-cats, and no one else. John A. Boehner can suck it.
I was very disappointed (although not very surprised) to find that the COPE Act passed by a wide margin (269 to 152) without the net neutrality provision. Does anyone know of an easy way to find out how our respective representatives voted on it?
I know, I know, I should have contacted my reps before now... I only contacted my senators. But I want to find out who these telecom-penis sucking bastards are so I make sure I never vote for any of them.
Windows Millenium cannot be considered as a pre-2K Operating System since it was relased *after* Windows 2000.
That's good, because I was under the impression when I purchased Windows ME that I would be able to use it for the entire millenium.
I'm confused... what does this have to do with the 2nd amendment again?
If we should be allowed to possess guns to keep our potentially tyrannical government at bay, wouldn't it be even better if we could possess all sorts of home-made bombs and grenades? Hell, if we all possessed small nuclear explosive devices we could really keep Washington on it's toes (just a joke, FBI guys, call off the helicopters).
"just your peers wont carry your traffic"
And will peers not carry my traffic if they are all republican and I bash Bush?
How about if the peers are from 3-letter agencies and don't care for my anti-establishment rants?
No thanks.