I didn't click on the link, but based on the domain-name this actually might be marginally on-topic.
+1 on-topic -infinity flamebait
The question nobody will dare answer here and really nobody here wants to know is does the person who took the photograph get "+5 years - jailbait" or "+ 50 years - much too young to qualify as jailbait". I'm just going to assume "neither" so I can sleep at night.
The age of consent for porn is 18 throughout the entire United States
You are correct insofar as Federal law is applicable.
A person using a camera which is entirely made in the state they are using it in (and, if it's film, the film is made and developed "in-state" using "made in the state" equipment) then the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution kicks in and the Feds will generally have no criminal jurisdiction.
I say "generally" - if the image is transmitted over wireless means, over "the Internet," or over the telephone the presumption is that the feds have jurisdiction over the transmission, reception, and any copies received by the recipient. But if by some coincidence I lived in the state where Polaroid cameras and film used to be made and I obtained my camera and film from an in-state source, and shot a Polaroid, and gave it to someone else in the same state, and we never used a computer or phone to plan the exchange, it would be purely a matter for state and local prosecution.
If you'd been abused when you were ten, would you want those pictures online?
That's an interesting question.
If I were molested and photographed at age 10 and I came into possession of the photographs when I was 20 or 30, would I want the right to publish them online? Would I want the right to license the publication rights to others in exchange for mega-bucks? Or would I want to live in a society that says "no, you don't have that right, and the reason why is if we give you and others in your situation that right, it will lead to more child abuse?"
Me, personally, I hope to God that I would be in the last group. But what can I, as a person who generally believes in free speech and (within some limits) American-style capitalism tell those victims of child abuse who, by some means or another, came into possession of previously-unpublished photographs of their own abuse when they were a child and they want to market those images legally without being a hypocrite?
In the early 1980s there were only two practical ways to transfer child porn: "Locally," which meant in person, by local courier, or by a "drop" or similar means, or "non-local" by courier, shipper, or the Post office.
Finding other people to trade the stuff with in a way that the cops wouldn't easily find you was also very difficult.
The US Postal Service inspectors and other police agencies were so effective that by the early 1980s it was said that child porn trading through the mail was virtually wiped out, AND that police were finding virtually zero "new" images.
The advent of the computer scanner, particularly the color scanner, changed all of that. Now people could use computers to send images to each other 1-on-1 or via invite-only bulletin boards and, well, I don't need to go on from there.
I remember the "bulletin board lists" of the 1980s. The "adult" boards were typically marked or in a separate list. I can't help but wonder how many of those had "secret, invite only" areas that held illegal images. If you know, please don't tell me. Unless the answer is "0" I don't want to know.
What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable. That's not the problem with child porn.
The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it.
Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. Arresting the people who are making it does.
Similar statements can be made for most other crimes.
If you make it hard to obtain drugs, only those really determined to get them will go to the effort.
If you make it really hard to rob bank, only those really determined will bother.
If you make it really hard to find child pornography, only those really determined will keep searching, the rest will give up.
Of those who are looking for child porn for a sexual thrill, you've got several categories:
Those who will see it once or maybe a few times and won't do it again (the curious, the thrill-seekers).
Those who will continue to want it but will not "progress" to child molestation, trading, soliciting the creation of new porn, etc. AND who, if their supply is cut off, will not seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others (the "satisfied with just images" users).
Those who, if their supply is NOT cut off, will progress to more serious forms of abuse (the "escalating" users).
Those who, if their supply IS cut off, will progress to "local, real-life" forms of abusing others (the "substitution" users).
Those who, if they cannot find child porn at all, will NOT seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others.
Those who, if they cannot find child porn at all, WILL seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others.
There is also the issue of "perceived demands drives supply" - if those producers who are doing it for revenue or for the thrill of seeing their "hit count" go up have more customers, on the whole the supply of "new" child porn is likely to be higher than if they believe there is little demand for their images. More "new" child porn being distributed in the future pretty much means more actual, real-world abuse in the future.
My very strong hunch is that making it very hard to find child porn will be a net win for children, even if in particular situations you may have significant numbers of children whose dads molest them in person because he can't find his "methodone/child porn."
Arresting the people who are making it does.
I'm all with you but if these people are in a country with weak law enforcement in this area, there's not much that Interpol or *insert child-porn-hating country with good law enforcement here* can do in the short term to put the abuser behind bars.
If they get their employees deputized or otherwise "blessed" by the powers that be, then it's okay.
You know who else is allowed to see child porn?
Lawmakers and their staff members in the performance of official duties that require looking at it.
According to someone I talked to in Washington a number of years ago, if a Congressperson needs some porn pulled for official use, the staff member he picks to get it for him is usually an older woman who presumably would have no interest in the contents beyond what is needed to verify it is what the Congressperson needs.
I heard from a source who was not authorized to speak on the matter that according to NSA taps of the CCTV cameras in the afterlife, the late Patrick McGoohan was quite upset.
So were Benjamin Franklin and most of the rest of our founding fathers.
If I don't specifically ask for "slashdot.com" in my web browser, I don't get it. I guess my ISP must be blocking it. But fortunately, once I "ask" for it, I get it, usually within seconds.
Unfortunately, slashdot.org sometimes stays blocked for a few more seconds. Must be that "slashdot effect" I keep hearing about.
Block the whole internet by default. Customers have to submit a list of checkmarks letting the ISP know what they would like to have unblocked.
I think my ISP does that already.
If I don't specifically ask for "slashdot.com" in my web browser, I don't get it. I guess my ISP must be blocking it. But fortunately, once I "ask" for it, I get it, usually within seconds.
To opt in to the Internet I actually have to sit down at a computer and turn it on, or pull out a cell phone and look at it, or... well, you get the idea.
Note to Americans who get calls from Visa claiming fraud: Tell them "Who are you and how can I call you back [write down information], OK, thanks, I'll call my bank right now" then hang up.
I'm guessing he means the handshake protocols where the sender asks the receiver if he's ready to receive, and doesn't send until he gets confirmation.
NTS also has some rudimentary error-detection/correction built in:
The sender will tell the receiver how many words are in the message. If the receiver does't get the exact number of words or if he has any other reason to think the message wasn't properly received, he will notify the sender and they will try again. If the word count matches and the receiver doesn't believe there are any errors, he will tell the sender that the message was received.
If the sender does NOT receive that final confirmation, he will assume the message was not sent and will try sending it again either right then or later.
with that logic the blind have been reading digital books for ages
So have regular people, albeit with a "base" big enough to hold alphanumeric characters plus symbols (about 60- or 70-something for most English text).
The blind have been reading binary (raised dot/no raised dot) books for ages.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't click on the link, but based on the domain-name this actually might be marginally on-topic.
+1 on-topic
-infinity flamebait
The question nobody will dare answer here and really nobody here wants to know is does the person who took the photograph get "+5 years - jailbait" or "+ 50 years - much too young to qualify as jailbait". I'm just going to assume "neither" so I can sleep at night.
The age of consent for porn is 18 throughout the entire United States
You are correct insofar as Federal law is applicable.
A person using a camera which is entirely made in the state they are using it in (and, if it's film, the film is made and developed "in-state" using "made in the state" equipment) then the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution kicks in and the Feds will generally have no criminal jurisdiction.
I say "generally" - if the image is transmitted over wireless means, over "the Internet," or over the telephone the presumption is that the feds have jurisdiction over the transmission, reception, and any copies received by the recipient. But if by some coincidence I lived in the state where Polaroid cameras and film used to be made and I obtained my camera and film from an in-state source, and shot a Polaroid, and gave it to someone else in the same state, and we never used a computer or phone to plan the exchange, it would be purely a matter for state and local prosecution.
If you'd been abused when you were ten, would you want those pictures online?
That's an interesting question.
If I were molested and photographed at age 10 and I came into possession of the photographs when I was 20 or 30, would I want the right to publish them online? Would I want the right to license the publication rights to others in exchange for mega-bucks? Or would I want to live in a society that says "no, you don't have that right, and the reason why is if we give you and others in your situation that right, it will lead to more child abuse?"
Me, personally, I hope to God that I would be in the last group. But what can I, as a person who generally believes in free speech and (within some limits) American-style capitalism tell those victims of child abuse who, by some means or another, came into possession of previously-unpublished photographs of their own abuse when they were a child and they want to market those images legally without being a hypocrite?
Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. Shooting the people who are making it does.
What would you shoot them with, a top-of-the-line camera or a $20 Wal-Mart pocket-cam?
At least this way reduces the number of workers they have which require serious therapy after viewing those images for manual filtering purposes;
This actually makes sense.
there was less alcohol during prohibition (a 30% reduction).
So THAT'S why Grandpa complained that the bootleg booze he bought tasted 30% watered down!
In the early 1980s there were only two practical ways to transfer child porn: "Locally," which meant in person, by local courier, or by a "drop" or similar means, or "non-local" by courier, shipper, or the Post office.
Finding other people to trade the stuff with in a way that the cops wouldn't easily find you was also very difficult.
The US Postal Service inspectors and other police agencies were so effective that by the early 1980s it was said that child porn trading through the mail was virtually wiped out, AND that police were finding virtually zero "new" images.
The advent of the computer scanner, particularly the color scanner, changed all of that. Now people could use computers to send images to each other 1-on-1 or via invite-only bulletin boards and, well, I don't need to go on from there.
I remember the "bulletin board lists" of the 1980s. The "adult" boards were typically marked or in a separate list. I can't help but wonder how many of those had "secret, invite only" areas that held illegal images. If you know, please don't tell me. Unless the answer is "0" I don't want to know.
I get to see the REAL "dark Internet" every time my ISP's service goes out. *cue rimshot*
What is the point of automatically removing child porn so it's not searchable. That's not the problem with child porn.
The problem with child porn is real children are being really abused to make it.
Making it "not searchable" doesn't stop that. Arresting the people who are making it does.
Similar statements can be made for most other crimes.
If you make it hard to obtain drugs, only those really determined to get them will go to the effort.
If you make it really hard to rob bank, only those really determined will bother.
If you make it really hard to find child pornography, only those really determined will keep searching, the rest will give up.
Of those who are looking for child porn for a sexual thrill, you've got several categories:
There is also the issue of "perceived demands drives supply" - if those producers who are doing it for revenue or for the thrill of seeing their "hit count" go up have more customers, on the whole the supply of "new" child porn is likely to be higher than if they believe there is little demand for their images. More "new" child porn being distributed in the future pretty much means more actual, real-world abuse in the future.
My very strong hunch is that making it very hard to find child porn will be a net win for children, even if in particular situations you may have significant numbers of children whose dads molest them in person because he can't find his "methodone/child porn."
Arresting the people who are making it does.
I'm all with you but if these people are in a country with weak law enforcement in this area, there's not much that Interpol or *insert child-porn-hating country with good law enforcement here* can do in the short term to put the abuser behind bars.
If they get their employees deputized or otherwise "blessed" by the powers that be, then it's okay.
You know who else is allowed to see child porn?
Lawmakers and their staff members in the performance of official duties that require looking at it.
According to someone I talked to in Washington a number of years ago, if a Congressperson needs some porn pulled for official use, the staff member he picks to get it for him is usually an older woman who presumably would have no interest in the contents beyond what is needed to verify it is what the Congressperson needs.
I heard from a source who was not authorized to speak on the matter that according to NSA taps of the CCTV cameras in the afterlife, the late Patrick McGoohan was quite upset.
So were Benjamin Franklin and most of the rest of our founding fathers.
I opt out of TV commercials every time I turn off the TV.
Some parents opt their kids out of frequent exposure to TV commercials by not having TV in the home.
[read parent for context]
Sure you are, you just have to go to another country to do so.
If I don't specifically ask for "slashdot.com" in my web browser, I don't get it. I guess my ISP must be blocking it. But fortunately, once I "ask" for it, I get it, usually within seconds.
Unfortunately, slashdot.org sometimes stays blocked for a few more seconds. Must be that "slashdot effect" I keep hearing about.
Block the whole internet by default. Customers have to submit a list of checkmarks letting the ISP know what they would like to have unblocked.
I think my ISP does that already.
If I don't specifically ask for "slashdot.com" in my web browser, I don't get it. I guess my ISP must be blocking it. But fortunately, once I "ask" for it, I get it, usually within seconds.
To opt in to the Internet I actually have to sit down at a computer and turn it on, or pull out a cell phone and look at it, or ... well, you get the idea.
If it doesn't, then it doesn't block torrents/P2P.
Is it okay in the Home Office??? Just asking.
Censoring porn is easy.
Not censoring non-porn is easy.
Doing both at the same time is virtually impossible.
Well, it is still a system of "ON" and "OFF" at the physical layer, I would call that binary, wouldn't you?
Here they typically call you on the phone.
Note to Americans who get calls from Visa claiming fraud: Tell them "Who are you and how can I call you back [write down information], OK, thanks, I'll call my bank right now" then hang up.
Oh, and call your bank, since it might be legit.
What do you mean by RTS/CTS in NTS?
I'm guessing he means the handshake protocols where the sender asks the receiver if he's ready to receive, and doesn't send until he gets confirmation.
NTS also has some rudimentary error-detection/correction built in:
The sender will tell the receiver how many words are in the message. If the receiver does't get the exact number of words or if he has any other reason to think the message wasn't properly received, he will notify the sender and they will try again. If the word count matches and the receiver doesn't believe there are any errors, he will tell the sender that the message was received.
If the sender does NOT receive that final confirmation, he will assume the message was not sent and will try sending it again either right then or later.
And a very few telegraphs are podial or foot operated
Foot-pedal-keys are used in the amateur radio world.
Mod parent +5 +/- noise insightful
where noise is significantly less than 0.5
with that logic the blind have been reading digital books for ages
So have regular people, albeit with a "base" big enough to hold alphanumeric characters plus symbols (about 60- or 70-something for most English text).
The blind have been reading binary (raised dot/no raised dot) books for ages.