The requirement to load legal software is fine as long as this is not the imposition of another Microsoft tax, which means load MS or you cannot sell the computer. So bare computers are being sold. So what? Microsoft shouldn't have any influence on whether this occurs or not. China has a good number of linux users and several of their own distributions. They are all legal. But, unless Microsoft drop their prices significantly for that market they are going to find it hard going to convert the masses. Business might (?) bite the bullet and pass the increased costs onto the customers but I cannot see many home users wanting to spend good money on software that they can get for free, be it linux or a pirated version of a Microsoft offering.
I'm not sure that individual is 'more highly respected and expected to be more self sufficient', I would like to know how you back that up. I actually find that comment insulting although I don't believe you meant it to be so so I haven't taken offence by it. Maybe we do trust our Governments more - we can certainly change them if we don't like them - but we don't want them to dictate our every move and, in my opinion, they don't. We have a different mindset but I'm do not think that you have identified the differences correctly.
Much of the argument regarding cameras in New York relates to personal freedoms and/or privacy that might be affected although it seems to me as an outsider those very same freedoms are already affected but without the complaints. Do you not have speeding cameras anywhere in the USA? If not, I am genuinely very surprised. Your usage of credit cards and the data that is amassed when you use them seems to be far more poorly regulated than it is in Europe. The fact that businesses, web-sites, search engines etc can all collect data and sell it to the highest bidder or use it for purposes other than that for which it was originally collected is unacceptable to us. Some vehicle movements are already recorded in some form or other (toll gates, certain bridges etc). It seems to be the belief that your every move will be noted and recorded. That is not how it works in the UK. The films are kept for a period of time but nobody is correlating the data on each vehicle move. Its primary use is for traffic control but it is also there should the police wish to identify and track a vehicle that has been brought to their attention. Each case that uses the CCTV data requires thousands of man-hours to analyse the available data - why do you believe that it will be done for every vehicle every time it appears on a camera? The only software that I have actually seen in use that was recording vehicle registration plates was provided by the US government to a European country. Even then it could only record the plate details and confirm that the plate had been issued. It couldn't tell one vehicle marque from another, it couldn't do accurate colour recognition (day/night/artificial light?). But such software originated in America and I'd be surprised if it wasn't being used there already. Who will make up the thousands of people that would be responsible for analysing all of the images that are collected? Where are the computers that are today standing idle but tomorrow will be made available to automate this task of personal recognition, even assuming that the software is available? I'm sure that computers can assist in this task but your fear is based on the premise that the computing power is sat somewhere waiting for data to work on. I'll bet that the computers at NSA, CIA, FBI etc are all pretty busy now. Are computers of sufficient processing capacity even specified as part of the system that is being discussed for New York? At least for us, that is not how it works. The only argument that I have read that seemed like it might be making a valid point in this thread is one that is based on something that is, to me, illogical. Someone complained that the system would end up with a lot more people being brought to justice for breaking the law e.g. motoring offences etc. Isn't that what the system is supposed to do? Why do people think that they should be allowed to break the law but others can't?
But aren't you actually admitting that you are already breaking the law? In fact, in your example, you break it 10 times. And then you complain that you receive a ticket. Do you mean that only breaking the law 9 times is perfectly acceptable, you know, something like committing 5 murders is OK but lets throw the book at someone who commits six? Or, are you now concerned that you will not be able to break the law at all? Isn't that meant to be for the good of the society in which you live. Now don't try and counter this by quoting some obscure law that shouldn't ever have been passed. If a law is wrong - get it changed! But we should all live according to the laws that our society has deemed acceptable, or are you also washing your hands of anything that your society has done in your name?
That might be true under the US system but not necessarily elsewhere. There is much less sue/counter sue in Europe for example. And in the UK the loser pays the costs of both parties. Now the Groklaw explanation seems convinces me that Microsoft have realised that they have shot themselves in both feet and received powder burns to their hands. I wouldn't expect to see a European judge being unfairly biased towards Microsoft, particularly with their recent history over here, so I would be quietly confident about my position providing that at least one of the vouchers has been submitted and honoured. As many have been saying for a few months - the call would be "Go ahead, Microsoft, sue me".
I am rather pleased that they failed through incompetence. I am also pleased when any attack fails, for any reason. There are benefits, other than the obvious, to this chain of events but it will be difficult to see which get to become important. For example, perhaps other would-be terrorists will realise that making a bomb is not a simple as they might think. If they then don't make one, that is a win for everyone else. Perhaps they will realise that not only they, but their families and supporters could be recognised, identified and arrested which might dissuade others from providing the support necessary for the hard-line (but in this case incompetent) bombers from even mounting an attack. The cameras, in London or New York, are not there solely to prevent terrorism, but they are a valuable tool in this fight as well as providing other benefits to the security services and law enforcement. I understand the civil liberties issues - you must decide in the USA whether this is the way that you want to go, but having lived with the system it didn't adversely affect my day-to-day life one jot. It might have helped prevent an attack that I would have been injured in, but I will never know.
In buildings, automatic fire extinguisher systems are often used. They don't prevent a fire from igniting, but they do help to prevent the fire from being quite as bad as it might have been, and they help preserve evidence of how the fire started, thus providing information that might make our lives safer. There is a down-side. They have to be paid for, there is legislation stating how they must be manufactured, installed and serviced. But they are often deemed to be value for money and nobody knows how many lives might have been lost if the systems had not been installed. The CCTV is not a black and white issue (no pun intended). Installing them does not stop crime and terrorism overnight. But the UK Government has judged them to be value for money and we have them installed. They do support the police and security services. Some small time crime (e.g. car theft, road tax evasion, false vehicle registration plates, mugging, burglary, disturbances etc) does get prevented and even more results in detection and conviction because of the information provided by the images. And they fulfill their main role as helping to control traffic flow and prevent congestion.
After all the debate has been made about personal liberties (which I understand and accept), I personally know of no-one who feels that they are under the microscope or even mentions the existence of the cameras. They are now largely unnoticed as are roadside drains and telephone boxes until they are needed. Mind you, I don't move in a group of people that has much to hide about how they live their lives.
They were successful if preventing the 4 of the 6 in a London court today from committing another attack. They might be successful in stopping the other 2, but the jury has not yet reached a verdict. From the evidence collected in this particular case, much of which but certainly not all was from CCTV, the security forces are better equipped to prevent subsequent crimes. And, despite what is being stated elsewhere on this thread, the police were able to track retrospectively a vehicle being used when one of the terrorists left London and travelled to the North of England. It wouldn't have made any difference whether the car had false plates, had been repainted or whatever. They tracked it for over 250 miles (using a very circuitous route) using CCTV imagery and the end result was the an individual was arrested, is now in court, and if found guilt it will prevent him from carry out another attack for a few years.
Not all suicide bombers are successful - today 4 of 6 would-be terrorists (London 21/7) have been found guilty because of the evidence which included considerable CCTV footage. They were identified and tracked using CCTV in the 2 weeks following their attempt. Not all members of the team were suicide bombers. The 2 accused for which the jury has not yet reached a verdict were also identified by CCTV although they did not take part in the bombing itself. Even successful bombers can be identified and the security services can learn much to help prevent subsequent attacks. So while I accept the thrust of your statement, you are being much too simplistic in your analysis of the value of anything that assists in the detection and prevention of terrorism. The police and security services might not be successful every time but as long as they prevent the bomb that would otherwise blow you up, don't you think that would be a direct benefit to you?
I don't have figures of the crime stats themselves but there is much (empirical) evidence to suggest that the police are having significant success in bring serious criminals to court. In fact, 4 of the 6 terrorists charged with the failed 21/7 bomb attempt in London have been found guilty (the jury is still out on the remaining 2). The evidence not only included considerable CCTV footage of the failed attempts but the police have been able to show how they identified and tracked the suspects in the 2 weeks following the bombing attempt until the terrorists were arrested. It included one making his escape dressed as a female wearing a burka. The CCTV footage must be subjected to many thousands of man hours of analysis but it can be, and is being, done. London is far from having serious crime detected and prevented in real-time although petty crime is reputedly reduced in CCTV covered areas. As another comment has suggested, only half-jokingly, the crime has moved to areas not covered by CCTV!
I'm a Brit but I no longer live in the UK, having retired to more pleasant climes about 6 months ago. But while there, I never felt that the cameras were intrusive and I did not feel that I was being watched, even if electronically I was. I understand how people might feel that their civil liberties and privacy are both being reduced but I did not feel that in the slightest. Today's news does, in my book, more than justify the use of CCTV. YMMV
I happily acknowledge all the nations that have contributed to the make up of the USA. I apologise if I didn't name them all individually.
I asked who recognised each of the states as independent countries. You appear to confirm that they recognised each other but that there was no appreciable recognition from outside the land that now comprises the USA. Having alliances during a war does not confer nationhood on anyone. I don't have a problem with this but I did ask for clarification, not your second rant of the day. Have you tried a different brand of coffee?
So are you saying that your only complaint is that your particular state wasn't allowed to choose a new 'wonder'? And that's because you have chosen "to form a single government that all lend ear to while retaining independence"? As I said, sort out your own problems and do not try to change what exists in Europe. The various countries that make up the EU appear to have considerable freedom to do as they each wish but, where they have agreed to cooperate then there are mutual benefits from having similar legislation. Not all countries are part of the monetary union (UK isn't). That each of the states (who want to be known as countries because they a big, have their own forces etc) cannot chose a 'wonder' is an INTERNAL affair and nothing to do with international bodies. You chose to become a union with a single voice. We haven't, but we recognise the value of speaking with one voice on matters that might affect us all. Each country has the right to its own foreign policy (does each state have a foreign policy?). Each country has its own ministers and representatives in international organisations (do the 'states' do the same thing?). Each country can deploy its forces as it sees fit (can the states deploy forces overseas into battle without the US government having a say in the matter?). Each country has diplomatic staff and representations in embassies and consulates around the world (do each of the states have a similar facility?). You chose your system and you are complaining that we seem to have done better with ours in that we have better representation for each national group.
The whole 'wonders' thing was an advertising and money making event, not some major international policy decision. Please have a sense of perspective. This is not something of great import to anyone. Write to the people who organised it and point out that your state will happily pay for the right to be able to pick a 'wonder' for the new list. I'm sure they will be please to let you do so and they will also be grateful for your money (and email addresses).
Its Sunday, please take it easy and rest before the working week begins again. Chill out. Have a glass of wine.:-)
Well, I cannot get excited about it either way, we will have to differ in our opinion. "I haven't researched the issue" == "I don't know" if you want to know what I think. "certainly met the criteria" == "we could have if we had wanted to, but we didn't get round to doing anything about it". And you seemed to do a pretty good job of getting rid of those American Indian nations that you proudly refer to as proof of your long history so that they are now left with parcels of land of your choosing to live on as best they can under your rules.
However, this will be a sterile and pointless argument because you seem to be either having a bad Sunday, or you strongly dislike Europe which provided much of the stock from which many Americans are descended. But rather than interfere (again) in how foreign countries do things why don't you do something in the one country where you have a right to be heard? You know, the USA. Start a movement to split it into a much larger number of smaller countries. Then you can each pick your own 'wonder' and you don't have to be an idiot by telling other countries how they should behave.
I mean no offence to the millions of other decent Americans, but you seem to be one of the exceptions that proves the rule.
I would argue that this has nothing at all to do the wonders in the world, but is merely your own politcal rant. However, each of the member countries, note I did not say states, of the EU have a history going back 1000s of years. Were each of the states which now makes up the USA ever recognised as independent countries? If so, by whom?
I am not dodging the issue. I cannot say why the photographs Goaway is referring to were taken. Every picture that I take might be taken for a different purpose - to capture an image for historical purposes, to add to a portfolio, to make a statement on the environment, because they asked me to, to, to, well you get the idea. There are many genuine modeling jobs for children. Shopping catalogues, advertising posters, TV appearances etc. To get such a role the child has to be selected from the larger group of children who want that job. One way in which this is achieved is by the use of a modeling portfolio. So it is entirely possible that the child's parents asked for the photographs to be taken on behalf of their child, paid for the service that the photographer provided, and everyone was completely happy with the results. The photographs do not have to cross the line of decency. There is nothing illegal about the photographs. They depict a child or, as you put it, non-nude model. Providing that the child was not coerced into modeling and enters willingly into the arrangement I do not consider this example to be child exploitation.
Child pornography does exist and is abhorrent. Those who profit from the trade or who coerce the children into posing for the images are committing an offence, and I, like most other people, would be baying for some form of punishment that fits the crime, especially if their crime including assaulting the child or providing the coercion. I have children and grandchildren of my own.
All of this is irrelevant to this discussion. The question was asked "Why hasn't TPB removed these images?". My response is quite simple "Because the images are not illegal". I cannot make a judgement as to why the photographer took the images. I have not seen them so I cannot judge their artistic value. I do not know the photographer so I cannot provide any insight into his thought processes. It might well be that they were produced in the US where the law might forbid such photographs, where showing a boobie on TV is worthy of the death penalty, or where 'think of the children' or 'we must fight the terrorists' are widely used in an attempt to convince the sheeple of an otherwise unworthy and unjustifiable cause. That is a problem to be addressed in the USA. But elsewhere the images are viewed for what they are, which is quite clearly non-nude pictures of children. They remain entirely legal in themselves although, having lost that argument, this discussion seems to want to concentrate on the photographer's actions. Even if the photographer committed an offence when making the images (e.g. forced the child against his/her will) the images he produced need not be illegal in their own context. I would be as unhappy as apparently you are regarding the morality of the photographs but the law must judge the images on what they portray.
If someone is viewing the photographs and is being aroused then they should seek immediate help. They should not be killed, executed, driven out of town or whatever because they have not committed an offence just by looking at legal photographs. If they step over this boundary then the should be punished using the full power of the law. Their subsequent offence doesn't subsequently make any image that they may have looked at illegal. The images could, for example, remain posted on TPB because they are photographs of non-nude children which, in most civilised places, are considered an entirely normal part of our society.
TPB is based in Sweden. US law regarding the legality or morality of the images is irrelevant. Swedish law is applicable here. The fact that some Americans and perhaps others consider these images to be being lewd or believe that they have been made to cater specifically for pedophiles might not stand up without further evidence in a Swedish court. I do not know for sure because IANAL, but they have their own laws and can make their own decisions. Vigilante calls from a small group in a foreign country should
I'm not arguing with you and I accept the points that you make. But, if no crime has been committed then nobody will appear in court. Some of the images that appear to be considered illegal in the US, e.g. young girls, fully clothed, posing for photographs, are not illegal in some other countries. That is why, I think, many of such sites appear to be located in specific geographic regions. As long as the child was not force against its will (which it probably wasn't because a token payment was made which, to the child and his/her parents, seemed like a fortune) and the photographs do not depict actual or simulated sexual activity, then a crime has not been committed. No police will be involved. No lawmaker will be asked for an opinion. No judge will be asked to pronounce a sentence. And if you think that the legal system in every other country matches that which we expect in the western world, then you are, unfortunately, wrong. Abuse of females in some countries is acceptable. Not to you nor I, but don't expect that everyone shares our views. We can try to influence such countries and show them a better way but we have no right to impose our system upon them. It has not been helped by countries in the western world imposing their will and view in Africa and the Middle East, particularly when it appears that we are doing it for national gain rather than from some benevolent desire to help improve the country we are invading ^H^H^H^H assisting to become a modern democratic nation. They don't always value our views as much as we might think they ought to.
I apologise for my last post, but you are testing my patience. Let me try a different tack. Imagine I take a photograph of a cow in a field. Does that mean that I advocate beastiality? No, I just like the photograph because it meets all the requirements that appeal to me - composition, lighting, having something to say etc. But if someone looks at my photograph and thinks to themselves that they would really like to date that cow, and they wonder what it would look like reclining on a beach wearing a bikini, then I would suggest quite strongly that the seek help, quickly. But the photograph does not become illegal. It isn't the fault of the photograph that made the viewer have inexplicable sexual urges, but something about that person is not what I would consider 'normal'. If I take a photograph of a child, fully clothed, but obviously posed, it is exactly the same. I have taken the picture for its aesthetic values - pose, lighting, capturing the child's personality. If someone looks at my picture and sees a sex object, they need help. In the article that you provided there was no mention of the child being coerced nor does it appear that the pictures involved nakedness or any sexual activity. In many countries no crime has therefore been committed. But if you, in America, want to make that sort of thing illegal you have the right to do so. You haven't the right to tell the rest of us that we must also make it illegal. We don't agree. We do agree that someone who views children as sex objects needs help, and anyone who forces him/herself upon a child against that child's wishes is committing at least an assault and possibly a far more serious crime. If you cannot cope with photographs, please seek help. It is not normal. You shouldn't look at photographs of normal everyday objects, including children, and create sexual images of them. Honestly, it is not normal. Now, for the last time, please read what I have written, try to understand it and carry on with your life. If you disagree, please don't reply. I don't care. But please stay away from cattle and children if something I have written strikes a chord.....
They are pictures of clothed children. That is it. I do not know what pedophiles think of them. I haven't dodged the question, its just that you appear unable to comprehend what I have been writing for the last few hours. It is what people might do with the pictures that you seem to have a problem with. Go and ask them. If you think that they might be construed as erotic - you need help. To me, as an amateur photographer, they are simply pictures of children. I don't have to like the style but I can see nothing wrong with a young girl who dreams of being a model having photographs taken PROVIDING she is not being coerced against her will to pose for them. Now please, if you have nothing more useful to contribute, do as your nickname suggests.....
That is your opinion, and there might be laws in the US to prevent the publishing of such images. In other countries it is not always seen that way. What was being done might be wrong in the US but the images themselves are entirely legal. It is the purpose for which they were being sold that was in doubt. Were the images of children taking part in or simulating the act of sex?. In many countries that was, and in some cases still is, the definition of child pornography, not the one that is used in the USA. I cannot state it any clearer than that. US law is irrelevant in other countries so they were NOT NECESSARILY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY outside of the US. It would depend on the applicable law in the country in which the law is being applied. TPB is NOT in the USA. Swedish law applies - not yours. The article is irrelevant. It might be illegal for you, in the US, to download similar images from TPB. It is NOT necessarily illegal for someone to do so in their country. Please stop trying to push your puritanical view on people from other countries; although you are entitled to hold your view they do not have to agree with it. They have their own laws and are quite content to enforce them if they are broken. Pictures of clothed children are not necessarily illegal. People who see children as sex objects need help and counseling. My part in this particular discussion is closed. If you want to continue, please start reading again from the top.
That person was not abiding by TPB's terms of service. His torrents were removed. It is not a panic or knee-jerk reaction but it is true that by breaking the TOS he/she endangered the TPB's activities i.e. they do not want to be closed down because of the actions of one individual, or even a small number of individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
The requirement to load legal software is fine as long as this is not the imposition of another Microsoft tax, which means load MS or you cannot sell the computer. So bare computers are being sold. So what? Microsoft shouldn't have any influence on whether this occurs or not. China has a good number of linux users and several of their own distributions. They are all legal. But, unless Microsoft drop their prices significantly for that market they are going to find it hard going to convert the masses. Business might (?) bite the bullet and pass the increased costs onto the customers but I cannot see many home users wanting to spend good money on software that they can get for free, be it linux or a pirated version of a Microsoft offering.
I'm not sure that individual is 'more highly respected and expected to be more self sufficient', I would like to know how you back that up. I actually find that comment insulting although I don't believe you meant it to be so so I haven't taken offence by it. Maybe we do trust our Governments more - we can certainly change them if we don't like them - but we don't want them to dictate our every move and, in my opinion, they don't. We have a different mindset but I'm do not think that you have identified the differences correctly.
Much of the argument regarding cameras in New York relates to personal freedoms and/or privacy that might be affected although it seems to me as an outsider those very same freedoms are already affected but without the complaints. Do you not have speeding cameras anywhere in the USA? If not, I am genuinely very surprised. Your usage of credit cards and the data that is amassed when you use them seems to be far more poorly regulated than it is in Europe. The fact that businesses, web-sites, search engines etc can all collect data and sell it to the highest bidder or use it for purposes other than that for which it was originally collected is unacceptable to us. Some vehicle movements are already recorded in some form or other (toll gates, certain bridges etc). It seems to be the belief that your every move will be noted and recorded. That is not how it works in the UK. The films are kept for a period of time but nobody is correlating the data on each vehicle move. Its primary use is for traffic control but it is also there should the police wish to identify and track a vehicle that has been brought to their attention. Each case that uses the CCTV data requires thousands of man-hours to analyse the available data - why do you believe that it will be done for every vehicle every time it appears on a camera? The only software that I have actually seen in use that was recording vehicle registration plates was provided by the US government to a European country. Even then it could only record the plate details and confirm that the plate had been issued. It couldn't tell one vehicle marque from another, it couldn't do accurate colour recognition (day/night/artificial light?). But such software originated in America and I'd be surprised if it wasn't being used there already. Who will make up the thousands of people that would be responsible for analysing all of the images that are collected? Where are the computers that are today standing idle but tomorrow will be made available to automate this task of personal recognition, even assuming that the software is available? I'm sure that computers can assist in this task but your fear is based on the premise that the computing power is sat somewhere waiting for data to work on. I'll bet that the computers at NSA, CIA, FBI etc are all pretty busy now. Are computers of sufficient processing capacity even specified as part of the system that is being discussed for New York? At least for us, that is not how it works. The only argument that I have read that seemed like it might be making a valid point in this thread is one that is based on something that is, to me, illogical. Someone complained that the system would end up with a lot more people being brought to justice for breaking the law e.g. motoring offences etc. Isn't that what the system is supposed to do? Why do people think that they should be allowed to break the law but others can't?
But aren't you actually admitting that you are already breaking the law? In fact, in your example, you break it 10 times. And then you complain that you receive a ticket. Do you mean that only breaking the law 9 times is perfectly acceptable, you know, something like committing 5 murders is OK but lets throw the book at someone who commits six? Or, are you now concerned that you will not be able to break the law at all? Isn't that meant to be for the good of the society in which you live. Now don't try and counter this by quoting some obscure law that shouldn't ever have been passed. If a law is wrong - get it changed! But we should all live according to the laws that our society has deemed acceptable, or are you also washing your hands of anything that your society has done in your name?
Perhaps people sleep sometime? Don't know where you are, but between 0001 and 0600 I tend not to be on my computer.... Just a guess.
That might be true under the US system but not necessarily elsewhere. There is much less sue/counter sue in Europe for example. And in the UK the loser pays the costs of both parties. Now the Groklaw explanation seems convinces me that Microsoft have realised that they have shot themselves in both feet and received powder burns to their hands. I wouldn't expect to see a European judge being unfairly biased towards Microsoft, particularly with their recent history over here, so I would be quietly confident about my position providing that at least one of the vouchers has been submitted and honoured. As many have been saying for a few months - the call would be "Go ahead, Microsoft, sue me".
I am rather pleased that they failed through incompetence. I am also pleased when any attack fails, for any reason. There are benefits, other than the obvious, to this chain of events but it will be difficult to see which get to become important. For example, perhaps other would-be terrorists will realise that making a bomb is not a simple as they might think. If they then don't make one, that is a win for everyone else. Perhaps they will realise that not only they, but their families and supporters could be recognised, identified and arrested which might dissuade others from providing the support necessary for the hard-line (but in this case incompetent) bombers from even mounting an attack. The cameras, in London or New York, are not there solely to prevent terrorism, but they are a valuable tool in this fight as well as providing other benefits to the security services and law enforcement. I understand the civil liberties issues - you must decide in the USA whether this is the way that you want to go, but having lived with the system it didn't adversely affect my day-to-day life one jot. It might have helped prevent an attack that I would have been injured in, but I will never know.
In buildings, automatic fire extinguisher systems are often used. They don't prevent a fire from igniting, but they do help to prevent the fire from being quite as bad as it might have been, and they help preserve evidence of how the fire started, thus providing information that might make our lives safer. There is a down-side. They have to be paid for, there is legislation stating how they must be manufactured, installed and serviced. But they are often deemed to be value for money and nobody knows how many lives might have been lost if the systems had not been installed. The CCTV is not a black and white issue (no pun intended). Installing them does not stop crime and terrorism overnight. But the UK Government has judged them to be value for money and we have them installed. They do support the police and security services. Some small time crime (e.g. car theft, road tax evasion, false vehicle registration plates, mugging, burglary, disturbances etc) does get prevented and even more results in detection and conviction because of the information provided by the images. And they fulfill their main role as helping to control traffic flow and prevent congestion.
After all the debate has been made about personal liberties (which I understand and accept), I personally know of no-one who feels that they are under the microscope or even mentions the existence of the cameras. They are now largely unnoticed as are roadside drains and telephone boxes until they are needed. Mind you, I don't move in a group of people that has much to hide about how they live their lives.
Sorry, I mistyped the bold cancellation! Yeah, I know, I should have previewed.....
They were successful if preventing the 4 of the 6 in a London court today from committing another attack. They might be successful in stopping the other 2, but the jury has not yet reached a verdict. From the evidence collected in this particular case, much of which but certainly not all was from CCTV, the security forces are better equipped to prevent subsequent crimes. And, despite what is being stated elsewhere on this thread, the police were able to track retrospectively a vehicle being used when one of the terrorists left London and travelled to the North of England. It wouldn't have made any difference whether the car had false plates, had been repainted or whatever. They tracked it for over 250 miles (using a very circuitous route) using CCTV imagery and the end result was the an individual was arrested, is now in court, and if found guilt it will prevent him from carry out another attack for a few years.
Not all suicide bombers are successful - today 4 of 6 would-be terrorists (London 21/7) have been found guilty because of the evidence which included considerable CCTV footage. They were identified and tracked using CCTV in the 2 weeks following their attempt. Not all members of the team were suicide bombers. The 2 accused for which the jury has not yet reached a verdict were also identified by CCTV although they did not take part in the bombing itself. Even successful bombers can be identified and the security services can learn much to help prevent subsequent attacks. So while I accept the thrust of your statement, you are being much too simplistic in your analysis of the value of anything that assists in the detection and prevention of terrorism. The police and security services might not be successful every time but as long as they prevent the bomb that would otherwise blow you up, don't you think that would be a direct benefit to you?
I don't have figures of the crime stats themselves but there is much (empirical) evidence to suggest that the police are having significant success in bring serious criminals to court. In fact, 4 of the 6 terrorists charged with the failed 21/7 bomb attempt in London have been found guilty (the jury is still out on the remaining 2). The evidence not only included considerable CCTV footage of the failed attempts but the police have been able to show how they identified and tracked the suspects in the 2 weeks following the bombing attempt until the terrorists were arrested. It included one making his escape dressed as a female wearing a burka. The CCTV footage must be subjected to many thousands of man hours of analysis but it can be, and is being, done. London is far from having serious crime detected and prevented in real-time although petty crime is reputedly reduced in CCTV covered areas. As another comment has suggested, only half-jokingly, the crime has moved to areas not covered by CCTV!
I'm a Brit but I no longer live in the UK, having retired to more pleasant climes about 6 months ago. But while there, I never felt that the cameras were intrusive and I did not feel that I was being watched, even if electronically I was. I understand how people might feel that their civil liberties and privacy are both being reduced but I did not feel that in the slightest. Today's news does, in my book, more than justify the use of CCTV. YMMV
Thank you.
Shouldn't that be two wonders?
I happily acknowledge all the nations that have contributed to the make up of the USA. I apologise if I didn't name them all individually.
I asked who recognised each of the states as independent countries. You appear to confirm that they recognised each other but that there was no appreciable recognition from outside the land that now comprises the USA. Having alliances during a war does not confer nationhood on anyone. I don't have a problem with this but I did ask for clarification, not your second rant of the day. Have you tried a different brand of coffee?
So are you saying that your only complaint is that your particular state wasn't allowed to choose a new 'wonder'? And that's because you have chosen "to form a single government that all lend ear to while retaining independence"? As I said, sort out your own problems and do not try to change what exists in Europe. The various countries that make up the EU appear to have considerable freedom to do as they each wish but, where they have agreed to cooperate then there are mutual benefits from having similar legislation. Not all countries are part of the monetary union (UK isn't). That each of the states (who want to be known as countries because they a big, have their own forces etc) cannot chose a 'wonder' is an INTERNAL affair and nothing to do with international bodies. You chose to become a union with a single voice. We haven't, but we recognise the value of speaking with one voice on matters that might affect us all. Each country has the right to its own foreign policy (does each state have a foreign policy?). Each country has its own ministers and representatives in international organisations (do the 'states' do the same thing?). Each country can deploy its forces as it sees fit (can the states deploy forces overseas into battle without the US government having a say in the matter?). Each country has diplomatic staff and representations in embassies and consulates around the world (do each of the states have a similar facility?). You chose your system and you are complaining that we seem to have done better with ours in that we have better representation for each national group.
The whole 'wonders' thing was an advertising and money making event, not some major international policy decision. Please have a sense of perspective. This is not something of great import to anyone. Write to the people who organised it and point out that your state will happily pay for the right to be able to pick a 'wonder' for the new list. I'm sure they will be please to let you do so and they will also be grateful for your money (and email addresses).
Its Sunday, please take it easy and rest before the working week begins again. Chill out. Have a glass of wine. :-)
Well, I cannot get excited about it either way, we will have to differ in our opinion. "I haven't researched the issue" == "I don't know" if you want to know what I think. "certainly met the criteria" == "we could have if we had wanted to, but we didn't get round to doing anything about it". And you seemed to do a pretty good job of getting rid of those American Indian nations that you proudly refer to as proof of your long history so that they are now left with parcels of land of your choosing to live on as best they can under your rules.
However, this will be a sterile and pointless argument because you seem to be either having a bad Sunday, or you strongly dislike Europe which provided much of the stock from which many Americans are descended. But rather than interfere (again) in how foreign countries do things why don't you do something in the one country where you have a right to be heard? You know, the USA. Start a movement to split it into a much larger number of smaller countries. Then you can each pick your own 'wonder' and you don't have to be an idiot by telling other countries how they should behave.
I mean no offence to the millions of other decent Americans, but you seem to be one of the exceptions that proves the rule.
I would argue that this has nothing at all to do the wonders in the world, but is merely your own politcal rant. However, each of the member countries, note I did not say states, of the EU have a history going back 1000s of years. Were each of the states which now makes up the USA ever recognised as independent countries? If so, by whom?
Thank you for a well researched assessment of the problem. I agree wholeheartedly with EVERYTHING that you say. Simply, thank you.
I am not dodging the issue. I cannot say why the photographs Goaway is referring to were taken. Every picture that I take might be taken for a different purpose - to capture an image for historical purposes, to add to a portfolio, to make a statement on the environment, because they asked me to, to, to, well you get the idea. There are many genuine modeling jobs for children. Shopping catalogues, advertising posters, TV appearances etc. To get such a role the child has to be selected from the larger group of children who want that job. One way in which this is achieved is by the use of a modeling portfolio. So it is entirely possible that the child's parents asked for the photographs to be taken on behalf of their child, paid for the service that the photographer provided, and everyone was completely happy with the results. The photographs do not have to cross the line of decency. There is nothing illegal about the photographs. They depict a child or, as you put it, non-nude model. Providing that the child was not coerced into modeling and enters willingly into the arrangement I do not consider this example to be child exploitation.
Child pornography does exist and is abhorrent. Those who profit from the trade or who coerce the children into posing for the images are committing an offence, and I, like most other people, would be baying for some form of punishment that fits the crime, especially if their crime including assaulting the child or providing the coercion. I have children and grandchildren of my own.
All of this is irrelevant to this discussion. The question was asked "Why hasn't TPB removed these images?". My response is quite simple "Because the images are not illegal". I cannot make a judgement as to why the photographer took the images. I have not seen them so I cannot judge their artistic value. I do not know the photographer so I cannot provide any insight into his thought processes. It might well be that they were produced in the US where the law might forbid such photographs, where showing a boobie on TV is worthy of the death penalty, or where 'think of the children' or 'we must fight the terrorists' are widely used in an attempt to convince the sheeple of an otherwise unworthy and unjustifiable cause. That is a problem to be addressed in the USA. But elsewhere the images are viewed for what they are, which is quite clearly non-nude pictures of children. They remain entirely legal in themselves although, having lost that argument, this discussion seems to want to concentrate on the photographer's actions. Even if the photographer committed an offence when making the images (e.g. forced the child against his/her will) the images he produced need not be illegal in their own context. I would be as unhappy as apparently you are regarding the morality of the photographs but the law must judge the images on what they portray.
If someone is viewing the photographs and is being aroused then they should seek immediate help. They should not be killed, executed, driven out of town or whatever because they have not committed an offence just by looking at legal photographs. If they step over this boundary then the should be punished using the full power of the law. Their subsequent offence doesn't subsequently make any image that they may have looked at illegal. The images could, for example, remain posted on TPB because they are photographs of non-nude children which, in most civilised places, are considered an entirely normal part of our society.
TPB is based in Sweden. US law regarding the legality or morality of the images is irrelevant. Swedish law is applicable here. The fact that some Americans and perhaps others consider these images to be being lewd or believe that they have been made to cater specifically for pedophiles might not stand up without further evidence in a Swedish court. I do not know for sure because IANAL, but they have their own laws and can make their own decisions. Vigilante calls from a small group in a foreign country should
Either you are on the wrong thread, or I am more tired than I think..... WTF?
I'm not arguing with you and I accept the points that you make. But, if no crime has been committed then nobody will appear in court. Some of the images that appear to be considered illegal in the US, e.g. young girls, fully clothed, posing for photographs, are not illegal in some other countries. That is why, I think, many of such sites appear to be located in specific geographic regions. As long as the child was not force against its will (which it probably wasn't because a token payment was made which, to the child and his/her parents, seemed like a fortune) and the photographs do not depict actual or simulated sexual activity, then a crime has not been committed. No police will be involved. No lawmaker will be asked for an opinion. No judge will be asked to pronounce a sentence. And if you think that the legal system in every other country matches that which we expect in the western world, then you are, unfortunately, wrong. Abuse of females in some countries is acceptable. Not to you nor I, but don't expect that everyone shares our views. We can try to influence such countries and show them a better way but we have no right to impose our system upon them. It has not been helped by countries in the western world imposing their will and view in Africa and the Middle East, particularly when it appears that we are doing it for national gain rather than from some benevolent desire to help improve the country we are invading ^H^H^H^H assisting to become a modern democratic nation. They don't always value our views as much as we might think they ought to.
I apologise for my last post, but you are testing my patience. Let me try a different tack. Imagine I take a photograph of a cow in a field. Does that mean that I advocate beastiality? No, I just like the photograph because it meets all the requirements that appeal to me - composition, lighting, having something to say etc. But if someone looks at my photograph and thinks to themselves that they would really like to date that cow, and they wonder what it would look like reclining on a beach wearing a bikini, then I would suggest quite strongly that the seek help, quickly. But the photograph does not become illegal. It isn't the fault of the photograph that made the viewer have inexplicable sexual urges, but something about that person is not what I would consider 'normal'. If I take a photograph of a child, fully clothed, but obviously posed, it is exactly the same. I have taken the picture for its aesthetic values - pose, lighting, capturing the child's personality. If someone looks at my picture and sees a sex object, they need help. In the article that you provided there was no mention of the child being coerced nor does it appear that the pictures involved nakedness or any sexual activity. In many countries no crime has therefore been committed. But if you, in America, want to make that sort of thing illegal you have the right to do so. You haven't the right to tell the rest of us that we must also make it illegal. We don't agree. We do agree that someone who views children as sex objects needs help, and anyone who forces him/herself upon a child against that child's wishes is committing at least an assault and possibly a far more serious crime. If you cannot cope with photographs, please seek help. It is not normal. You shouldn't look at photographs of normal everyday objects, including children, and create sexual images of them. Honestly, it is not normal. Now, for the last time, please read what I have written, try to understand it and carry on with your life. If you disagree, please don't reply. I don't care. But please stay away from cattle and children if something I have written strikes a chord.....
No, you're just the idiot that he suggested that you were....
The point was still well made.
They are pictures of clothed children. That is it. I do not know what pedophiles think of them. I haven't dodged the question, its just that you appear unable to comprehend what I have been writing for the last few hours. It is what people might do with the pictures that you seem to have a problem with. Go and ask them. If you think that they might be construed as erotic - you need help. To me, as an amateur photographer, they are simply pictures of children. I don't have to like the style but I can see nothing wrong with a young girl who dreams of being a model having photographs taken PROVIDING she is not being coerced against her will to pose for them. Now please, if you have nothing more useful to contribute, do as your nickname suggests.....
That is your opinion, and there might be laws in the US to prevent the publishing of such images. In other countries it is not always seen that way. What was being done might be wrong in the US but the images themselves are entirely legal. It is the purpose for which they were being sold that was in doubt. Were the images of children taking part in or simulating the act of sex?. In many countries that was, and in some cases still is, the definition of child pornography, not the one that is used in the USA. I cannot state it any clearer than that. US law is irrelevant in other countries so they were NOT NECESSARILY CHILD PORNOGRAPHY outside of the US. It would depend on the applicable law in the country in which the law is being applied. TPB is NOT in the USA. Swedish law applies - not yours. The article is irrelevant. It might be illegal for you, in the US, to download similar images from TPB. It is NOT necessarily illegal for someone to do so in their country. Please stop trying to push your puritanical view on people from other countries; although you are entitled to hold your view they do not have to agree with it. They have their own laws and are quite content to enforce them if they are broken. Pictures of clothed children are not necessarily illegal. People who see children as sex objects need help and counseling. My part in this particular discussion is closed. If you want to continue, please start reading again from the top.
That person was not abiding by TPB's terms of service. His torrents were removed. It is not a panic or knee-jerk reaction but it is true that by breaking the TOS he/she endangered the TPB's activities i.e. they do not want to be closed down because of the actions of one individual, or even a small number of individuals.