I have. It exploits children. People who view child porn statistically act on it, thus causing harm to children. The correlation is very well known; ask your local mental health practitioner if you have any questions.
Both are guilty. The incidence of people acting on sex-with-children fantasies are very high. Child molestation, especially incest, statistics in the US are high-- and elsewhere, too.
The logical course is to prevent the spread of child porn as people do in fact act on it. If it were straight or gay porn and they're adults and act on it, fine. But children, who are largely defenseless, are the victims.
If no one viewed it, no one would make it, would they? Child molestation is a crime, but it's also a sign of addiction to processes that exploit children. Children deserve lives that aren't challenged by molestation. It's a sickness that in many individuals, isn't curable. That's why the sex offender registries are important; many child porn viewers do actually act on their impulses. Do the research; find out how the correlations work. It happens far more often than you'd think; perhaps as much as one in nine children are molested in the US.
Statutory rape and child molestation are a crime; viewing it makes you part of the production process as an end (ab)user.
Snuff films are plainly illegal, too. Pictures after-the-fact are reporting. Bad and strained analogy. There are those that believe violent games lead to violent acts. I don't stretch my beliefs to that degree at all here. But if you egg someone on to shoot somebody at a bar out of spite, you share the guilt for the murder.
In the same way, child porn hurts a child. Being part of the process gives you guilt. That's why the laws are written the way they are.
Children are precious things. They deserve to live an unmolested childhood. Eventually, they learn about sex. Once they can make informed choices, and depending on the jurisdiction, come of age, then they make legally informed choices about their behavior, what ever that behavior is.
And there are children, some as young as a year old and two years old being molested. I'll grant that sexting is a bit dubious and pretty stupid-- but not exploitation. Statutory rape and child molestation IS a problem, and the end result of it is common child *porn*. Naked images of anything don't bother me, but there are those images that are clearly sex acts and being a part of them is evil.
No, not blindly following programming. I've thought this one thru. It's like buying Mexican pot. It might get you really nice and high. No problem, right? You paid for it and maybe it's kinda legal or you have a medical prescription or something.
Along the way,however, the Mexican drug cartels-- the people in the delivery chain-- have murdered in hideous ways almost 100,000 people, many of them guilty of only trying to resist being exploited. Some were just in the way.
Children can't give informed consent. Neither can animals. If you have sex with them, you're exploiting them. We call that exploitation statutory rape and child molestation. It's harmful to the child. Go on, ask any, I repeat ANY mental health professional about the subject. You believe I'm a nutter; I believe in living in a cogent and civilized society-- and one that doesn't exploit and rape children.
Not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, or any branch. Rape is rape. You can give consent, and it's not rape. Children can't give consent. Ask any therapist-- any of them. You'll see that I'm not talking God and Satan and Hell.
I'm talking about the fact that children are exploited in child porn. Adults can do what they want-- you, too.
No. Have fun with Playboy. Have sex with an unconsenting adult or a child-- who can't really give consent, and I'll be happy to imprison you. It's called rape, or statutory rape.
We disagree; I believe it's entirely relevant. Child exploitation hurts children. Other porn is done (usually) with consenting adults, who make an informed choice. Children can't do that.
If you pay someone to do a contract murder, you'll never see it, but you're a murderer in the same way as someone pulling the trigger.
Yet one person's perversions are another's delight. It's the capacity to make an informed choice that's key. Children can't do that. View child porn, and you've placed yourself in the system as an end-user. View straight or gay porn of adults, and you're part of that system-- but with luck (barring slavery), you've hurt no one that could make an informed choice and consent.
It's evil because children are exploited. There is a choice, exploit or not. Exploit is the wrong choice; children are vulnerable, where adults can make informed decision. That's why sex with a mentally incompetent person has the same evil: they can't make an informed decision that we would call adult or mature.
Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification. The process of getting the picture was one of exploitation, see the above statement. A picture of a murder wasn't taken for the sexual gratification of the murder-- altho there are such things as snuff films-- also plainly evil.
Whether you share the porn or buy it, you're part of the chain that started with exploitation, brought on the ecosystems around porn. Somewhere, someone made money, or did it to share the exploitation. Either motivation exploits children.
But there are victims: kids. Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally. The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil. Some adults are addicted to it. They need help. By chasing them down, you reduce the harm to children; you may never be able to eliminate it.
The resources used, if the data is correct however, is way too high of a portion. Porn is otherwise largely a victimless crime, barring child porn, or those held in "white slavery". Not every porn actor did what they did of free will, altho many do.
It might do that. But what could you do? Windows 98 was full of memory leaks, incompatibilities, and ok, some really cool games like the original Duke Nukem.
Yes, and a lot more. But the major mobile device management apps deal with those three as well as Palm and Windows Mobile (some have Symbian) controls as well. The list of controls is long, and longer depending on the MDM maker. Some have to use the BES server to do their work for Blackberry while some can control it in lieu of paying RIM's price.
It was good that they were forthcoming, as competitors are both breathing down their necks, and also looking at their own infrastructure for possible race conditions that would crater post-failure storage isolation(s).
They also admitted but don't seem to get the message that their focus has been on developing novel customer solutions-- NOT keeping the core infrastructure bulletproof. Loose-and-fast rather than unrelenting QA will cause Amazon a lot of pain; it'll be hard to trust them until they can prove their infrastructure and multi-zone storage architecture and clustered instances work together given a broad spectrum of failure modes.
In English: they took their eye off the ball because the sales department distracted core QA functionality-- and it blew up, and badly, and expensively.
In the meantime, while a machine is working, it's hopefully serving a useful purpose. Some might be critical, like a point-of-sale or even more critical in a police station or hospital. You can't reach across the Atlantic, grab the machine's hard disk, and crater the machine. No valid SOP does that.
I realize that partitioning the machine by turning off its port is not a valid procedure, because most ISPs or providers in general don't spend money on addressable ports. They should.
But you can't nuke them. You can send them a notice saying that they're going to be disabled in X days, and here is EXACTLY HOW TO PROCEED to save the functionality of your machine.
You can also use the C&C network to allow itself to self-destruct. It got there, and if the machine is truly under its control, it can deliver a disabling payload to that machine.
But you can't willy-nilly just put a bullet through its boot sector. Doesn't fly.
If there'd been sufficient investment, someone could just shut off the port. Rootkits mean you get a new kernel after you've rendered what rooted it permanently dormant.
So sure. Let's say you render a couple hundred thousand machines unbootable by wiping their partition tables, MBR, or whatever. They wake up the next morning, and do they love you? Can they do business? Can they read x-rays? Will their their stuff work?
Your method might be nice for screwing up extractors in Iran, but I think you lose a lot of friends with that ostensible SOP.
Not if it leaves the machine in an unclean or unusable state. If you thought anti-American attitudes are bad now, imagine the FBI disabling a couple hundred thousand key machines abroad-- just to get rid of a virus.
Fraud might be the same. Tampering is good, too. Messing with it at all is the problem. Whatever becomes the most painful legal deterrent works. If I expect someone to get X information, and they get some formulaic representation that I didn't intend, then they've messed with expectation, and perhaps revenue, too. If the ad is part of my copyright, then I'm injured. If there's a theory that the copyright holder is injured, then the tort grows. What if they substitute (heaven forbid) THE WRONG KIND OF AD for my site? Then I'm slandered.
However, while an engineer believes that the right tool for the job is absolutely mandatory, in this case, I believe that whatever is most painful is the best remedy, so as to deter others. Make it an example. Did you hear that, Las Vegas Sun?
We disagree. I write a page, it has a static ad. You change the ad, you rob me of my revenue. My site has no ads, in reality. If you change it on the fly before it reaches my readers, you've in fact made a subsidiary work from my work, and you owe me.
That said, that's also if I give a shit, and want to sue you.
I've studied political and social structures and can tell you that communism is NOT the picture of utopia-- and was never really written to be utopian. It was a reaction to the perceptions of an era gone by. Collectivism was an experiment that lead to totalitarianism, as many sociopolitical experiments often lead.
I say: open the can. Of course I don't have the lawyers fees in my bank account-- but wait-- Sony released my information, so maybe someone else can be found to have it.
In all seriousness, the work and the author can be established, and if you're robbing the author of revenue, there will be hell to pay.
And they can. It's trivial. And it's common knowledge covered here before at http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/12/28/1931256/GSM-Decryption-Published so no backdoors, bribery, coerced vendors or anything else is needed. In fact, why not do it yourself? It would be like getting a police scanner that had the range of the old analog simplex radiotelephones. We used to listen to them and smirk because they thought their conversations were private.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one: http://www.camh.net/Research/Research_publications/Newsletter/child_pornography_pedophilia.html
Your binary logic otherwise suits no one.
No, not faulty.
Child exploitation may have a long disconnection between the event and a viewer, but the photos weren't made to put in a family album.
I have. It exploits children. People who view child porn statistically act on it, thus causing harm to children. The correlation is very well known; ask your local mental health practitioner if you have any questions.
Both are guilty. The incidence of people acting on sex-with-children fantasies are very high. Child molestation, especially incest, statistics in the US are high-- and elsewhere, too.
The logical course is to prevent the spread of child porn as people do in fact act on it. If it were straight or gay porn and they're adults and act on it, fine. But children, who are largely defenseless, are the victims.
If no one viewed it, no one would make it, would they? Child molestation is a crime, but it's also a sign of addiction to processes that exploit children. Children deserve lives that aren't challenged by molestation. It's a sickness that in many individuals, isn't curable. That's why the sex offender registries are important; many child porn viewers do actually act on their impulses. Do the research; find out how the correlations work. It happens far more often than you'd think; perhaps as much as one in nine children are molested in the US.
Statutory rape and child molestation are a crime; viewing it makes you part of the production process as an end (ab)user.
Snuff films are plainly illegal, too. Pictures after-the-fact are reporting. Bad and strained analogy. There are those that believe violent games lead to violent acts. I don't stretch my beliefs to that degree at all here. But if you egg someone on to shoot somebody at a bar out of spite, you share the guilt for the murder.
In the same way, child porn hurts a child. Being part of the process gives you guilt. That's why the laws are written the way they are.
Children are precious things. They deserve to live an unmolested childhood. Eventually, they learn about sex. Once they can make informed choices, and depending on the jurisdiction, come of age, then they make legally informed choices about their behavior, what ever that behavior is.
And there are children, some as young as a year old and two years old being molested. I'll grant that sexting is a bit dubious and pretty stupid-- but not exploitation. Statutory rape and child molestation IS a problem, and the end result of it is common child *porn*. Naked images of anything don't bother me, but there are those images that are clearly sex acts and being a part of them is evil.
No, not blindly following programming. I've thought this one thru. It's like buying Mexican pot. It might get you really nice and high. No problem, right? You paid for it and maybe it's kinda legal or you have a medical prescription or something.
Along the way,however, the Mexican drug cartels-- the people in the delivery chain-- have murdered in hideous ways almost 100,000 people, many of them guilty of only trying to resist being exploited. Some were just in the way.
Children can't give informed consent. Neither can animals. If you have sex with them, you're exploiting them. We call that exploitation statutory rape and child molestation. It's harmful to the child. Go on, ask any, I repeat ANY mental health professional about the subject. You believe I'm a nutter; I believe in living in a cogent and civilized society-- and one that doesn't exploit and rape children.
Not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim, or any branch. Rape is rape. You can give consent, and it's not rape. Children can't give consent. Ask any therapist-- any of them. You'll see that I'm not talking God and Satan and Hell.
I'm talking about the fact that children are exploited in child porn. Adults can do what they want-- you, too.
No. Have fun with Playboy. Have sex with an unconsenting adult or a child-- who can't really give consent, and I'll be happy to imprison you. It's called rape, or statutory rape.
Otherwise, thanks for the kind words.
We disagree; I believe it's entirely relevant. Child exploitation hurts children. Other porn is done (usually) with consenting adults, who make an informed choice. Children can't do that.
If you pay someone to do a contract murder, you'll never see it, but you're a murderer in the same way as someone pulling the trigger.
Yet one person's perversions are another's delight. It's the capacity to make an informed choice that's key. Children can't do that. View child porn, and you've placed yourself in the system as an end-user. View straight or gay porn of adults, and you're part of that system-- but with luck (barring slavery), you've hurt no one that could make an informed choice and consent.
It's evil because children are exploited. There is a choice, exploit or not. Exploit is the wrong choice; children are vulnerable, where adults can make informed decision. That's why sex with a mentally incompetent person has the same evil: they can't make an informed decision that we would call adult or mature.
Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification. The process of getting the picture was one of exploitation, see the above statement. A picture of a murder wasn't taken for the sexual gratification of the murder-- altho there are such things as snuff films-- also plainly evil.
Whether you share the porn or buy it, you're part of the chain that started with exploitation, brought on the ecosystems around porn. Somewhere, someone made money, or did it to share the exploitation. Either motivation exploits children.
But there are victims: kids. Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally. The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil. Some adults are addicted to it. They need help. By chasing them down, you reduce the harm to children; you may never be able to eliminate it.
The resources used, if the data is correct however, is way too high of a portion. Porn is otherwise largely a victimless crime, barring child porn, or those held in "white slavery". Not every porn actor did what they did of free will, altho many do.
It might do that. But what could you do? Windows 98 was full of memory leaks, incompatibilities, and ok, some really cool games like the original Duke Nukem.
Maybe more of us will turn off the phones when not in use. Too bad they take longer than Windows 98 to boot up these days.
Yes, and a lot more. But the major mobile device management apps deal with those three as well as Palm and Windows Mobile (some have Symbian) controls as well. The list of controls is long, and longer depending on the MDM maker. Some have to use the BES server to do their work for Blackberry while some can control it in lieu of paying RIM's price.
It was good that they were forthcoming, as competitors are both breathing down their necks, and also looking at their own infrastructure for possible race conditions that would crater post-failure storage isolation(s).
They also admitted but don't seem to get the message that their focus has been on developing novel customer solutions-- NOT keeping the core infrastructure bulletproof. Loose-and-fast rather than unrelenting QA will cause Amazon a lot of pain; it'll be hard to trust them until they can prove their infrastructure and multi-zone storage architecture and clustered instances work together given a broad spectrum of failure modes.
In English: they took their eye off the ball because the sales department distracted core QA functionality-- and it blew up, and badly, and expensively.
In the meantime, while a machine is working, it's hopefully serving a useful purpose. Some might be critical, like a point-of-sale or even more critical in a police station or hospital. You can't reach across the Atlantic, grab the machine's hard disk, and crater the machine. No valid SOP does that.
I realize that partitioning the machine by turning off its port is not a valid procedure, because most ISPs or providers in general don't spend money on addressable ports. They should.
But you can't nuke them. You can send them a notice saying that they're going to be disabled in X days, and here is EXACTLY HOW TO PROCEED to save the functionality of your machine.
You can also use the C&C network to allow itself to self-destruct. It got there, and if the machine is truly under its control, it can deliver a disabling payload to that machine.
But you can't willy-nilly just put a bullet through its boot sector. Doesn't fly.
Sweet.
A bit draconian, are you?
If there'd been sufficient investment, someone could just shut off the port. Rootkits mean you get a new kernel after you've rendered what rooted it permanently dormant.
So sure. Let's say you render a couple hundred thousand machines unbootable by wiping their partition tables, MBR, or whatever. They wake up the next morning, and do they love you? Can they do business? Can they read x-rays? Will their their stuff work?
Your method might be nice for screwing up extractors in Iran, but I think you lose a lot of friends with that ostensible SOP.
Slaughter them! They're infected!
Not if it leaves the machine in an unclean or unusable state. If you thought anti-American attitudes are bad now, imagine the FBI disabling a couple hundred thousand key machines abroad-- just to get rid of a virus.
Fraud might be the same. Tampering is good, too. Messing with it at all is the problem. Whatever becomes the most painful legal deterrent works. If I expect someone to get X information, and they get some formulaic representation that I didn't intend, then they've messed with expectation, and perhaps revenue, too. If the ad is part of my copyright, then I'm injured. If there's a theory that the copyright holder is injured, then the tort grows. What if they substitute (heaven forbid) THE WRONG KIND OF AD for my site? Then I'm slandered.
However, while an engineer believes that the right tool for the job is absolutely mandatory, in this case, I believe that whatever is most painful is the best remedy, so as to deter others. Make it an example. Did you hear that, Las Vegas Sun?
We disagree. I write a page, it has a static ad. You change the ad, you rob me of my revenue. My site has no ads, in reality. If you change it on the fly before it reaches my readers, you've in fact made a subsidiary work from my work, and you owe me.
That said, that's also if I give a shit, and want to sue you.
I've studied political and social structures and can tell you that communism is NOT the picture of utopia-- and was never really written to be utopian. It was a reaction to the perceptions of an era gone by. Collectivism was an experiment that lead to totalitarianism, as many sociopolitical experiments often lead.
I say: open the can. Of course I don't have the lawyers fees in my bank account-- but wait-- Sony released my information, so maybe someone else can be found to have it.
In all seriousness, the work and the author can be established, and if you're robbing the author of revenue, there will be hell to pay.
And they can. It's trivial. And it's common knowledge covered here before at http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/12/28/1931256/GSM-Decryption-Published so no backdoors, bribery, coerced vendors or anything else is needed. In fact, why not do it yourself? It would be like getting a police scanner that had the range of the old analog simplex radiotelephones. We used to listen to them and smirk because they thought their conversations were private.