What do you mean 'in no country it is allowed'. Are you an expert on every countries' laws now? Actually, some countries had no law against pornography at all until the last few years or so. They simply refused to acknowledge that it existed and therefore no laws were needed. How do you punish someone for not breaking a law that doesn't exist? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I am genuinely grateful for our discussion. But phrases like 'someone should step in' are not always appropriate, even if it is the police. Unless a law has been broken in the country concerned then our opinions are irrelevant. We may deem it to be entirely unacceptable behaviour in our own country but we do not have the right to impose our beliefs and views on any other country. Period. They each have the same right as we do to determine how they run their country despite what some politicians might want you to believe.
OK. Let me clarify. Those who exploit children by forcing them to do something against their will are guilty of a crime. I think that is what your example was about. However, not every photograph taken of a child is the result of exploitation, or if it is, it can be with both the child's and parents' consent. That is, to my view, immoral but not necessarily illegal. The resulting photographs are not illegal. Therefore, the images shouldn't be banned because no crime is being committed.
I wasn't accusing you, per se, of anything at all. But if people look at photographs of clothed children and imagine them to be erotic images designed to arouse pedophiles then they should seek help. Children are not erotic images but, if someone thinks that they are, then they need help. The world is full of children and others, as I have pointed out. Unless they are doing something in particular to act in an erotic manner we must take them as they are. They are human beings and however they appear is entirely normal. The problem lies in those who are trying to say that a particular group (e.g. preteen clothed children) should not be photographed because that is wrong. It isn't. The fault lies in the opinion and emotions of those doing the viewing, not in the physical characteristics of the child.
If someone has reported a specific torrent I would assume that it will be viewed by TPB and checked. If it is NOT ILLEGAL IN SWEDEN then they can continue to host the link. It doesn't matter what the law states in the US (i.e. where your example came from), or anywhere else for that matter. Other nations should not impose their views on what pornography is upon Sweden, or anyone else for that matter. Each nation can reach its own decision and make the laws that it feels are appropriate. The problem with/. is that it tends to be US centric and many people quote US law and say such images are breaking the law. Perhaps they are in America, but the rest of the world doesn't care a jot about US law. We don't have to. The images being described vaguely on this thread are entirely legal in many parts of the world regardless of whether you, I or anyone who is not living in those countries might think. It might be that the complaints that have been made previously are referring to material that breaks the law in their own country but not in Sweden.
I stress that I am not accusing you of anything. But, quite understandably, you seemed to be declaring the images illegal without a. having personally seen them and b. not taking into account Swedish law which might differ from your own. If I have misunderstood I apologise.
If TPB have clear evidence that a specific individual was posting unsuitable material of any kind then I am not surprised that they pulled all of his torrents. We will probably find that they will cooperate with the police in providing any evidence that they may ask for. It would be in their own interests to do so. But just pulling torrents because someone is offended or objects to the content when no law has been broken is simply censorship by vigilante. I wouldn't want that, nor do I suspect would you.
No, I don't believe that this is pornography because those who were claiming that it was were quoting their own laws and not the law that applies in this case i.e.Swedish. Secondly, pictures of clothed preteen girls, as was being quoted earlier in the thread, are not illegal of themselves.
I agree. Do not punish pedophiles for downloading but, if they commit a crime, then they should be punished. The images are irrelevant particularly as I think that we agree they are not pornographic.
I suspect that TPB are taking prudent measures but, as soon as they have received the appropriate legal advice, the images will be back. The images are not illegal so what reason could someone claim for prohibiting them?/p>
A news report from 2001 regarding the situation in the US is irrelevant. If you bother to read a "whole lot of words" then you will realise that, unless you are Swedish, your view of pornography is irrelevant in Sweden. I'm sorry if that disappoints you but you will have to learn to live with it.
Perhaps TPB are being prudent or, perhaps as a result of their checks they have ascertained that the links might be child pornography. They never said that they would serve pornography regardless of what others might think. It has been brought to their attention, they might have made checks, and they have made a decision. Good for them. It still doesn't support having the site closed down. In fact, if your belief is correct that they have remove the links then they have acted as good Swedish citizens.
A photograph of a child, clothed or naked, posed or candid, is not pornography. Lets see if the links come back up again in a few weeks, shall we?
If this has been a successful attempt at removing child pornography, I'll bet you that it will be back in another guise before we know it. You are correct, it doesn't mean that we should stop trying to remove it but we do have to make sure that the relevant laws of the relevant country are used, and not some arbitrary viewpoint from someone who has one particular standpoint on the issue. Neither your viewpoint nor mine is important.
I did not mean to give the impression that I support child exploitation. But I was making the distinction between exploitation (which this is) and pornography (which this might or might not be). See my response elsewhere for the problems that I have with 'underage teen model'. But essentially, there is not age limit for modeling (therefore one cannot be 'underage'). Secondly, your definition of pornography probably doesn't accord with the definition used by other countries. With regards to TPB then Swedish law is the appropriate law. Thirdly, I do not doubt that your experience is valid but it is yet to be proven whether TPB is breaking the law in any respect, or that these images are deemed to be pornographic in Sweden. I also believe that many pedophiles will download such files for their own gratification. Punish the pedophiles. We don't ban cars yet hundreds of thousands of people are killed and maimed each year as a result of their use. But we do punish the driver who causes the accident. Some countries still believe it is correct that anyone may carry arms, yet thousands die each year by violent crime. We punish the person who pulled the trigger. If the people taking these photographs are guilty of a crime, then they too should be punished. But a photograph of a child does not become illegal because of what someone imagines a pedophile would do if he possessed such images. I abhor pedophiles, but even so I would rather they get their thrills looking at photographs rather than being on the streets looking for a victim. We cannot make them disappear despite whatever effort we have expended to date. It is an imperfect world.
We don't 'fail to honour software patents'. There are none that are legally valid in Europe. US law doesn't apply outside of the US. But I agree with the main thrust - Swedish law is the only law relevant in this issue.
Your idea of pornography and the legal values in your country don't necessarily apply in another. You should see our TV!/p>
Your suggestion that 'someone should step in to help us see that it is unacceptable' sounds like something the school bully might say. Mind your own business and sort out your own country. The people in Sweden have democratically elected their Government and it has made the appropriate laws. If you don't like them try not to cry too loudly.
Well, from the title alone, I haven't got a clue what it is. Are you suggesting that, although you know it is child pornography, I should still download it to find out? I hope not. Because if I download a torrent I am also uploading that torrent, and that would make me guilty of distribution of pornography which is considerably more serious than simply downloading it for my own use, but it would be a moot point because both could get me in trouble. But I go back to the title on the page that you have given me. 'Underage' - means what? There is no legal age limit before which one can model for a photograph, so that leads me nowhere. OK, lets try 'bestassets ' (sic). Perhaps her hair is her best asset, or her smile? No, we can't have photographs of children with nice hair smiling. Lets take another approach then. Is she naked? I don't know but probably not. Is she posing for the camera. Yep, but that's not illegal. Is she actually taking part in, or simulating, that act of sex? Again, I don't know but I suspect not. So what, exactly, is she doing that is illegal. NOTHING!. The illegal part is in what you imagine YOU might do to her or, perhaps being more polite, what you imagine a nasty pedophile would want to do to her. Well, punish the pedophile because, as of yet, there is no law against children being photographed. This is almost certainly a case of child exploitation but, from the information that you have given me, I cannot say that it is pornography and I do not intend to download it to find out.
I suspect that you, like many other people, have photographs of yourself and/or your children being photographed with clothes on as you/they grow up. Am I to assume therefore that you are all getting some kind of sexual thrill from looking at these pictures and therefore you are all pedophiles? No, that would be stupid. As I have already said elsewhere in this thread, the photographs that I believe you are referring to (i.e. clothed children posing for photographs) are not illegal but they seem to offend you or make you feel uneasy. That is YOUR problem. Seek help, now. Because the world is full of children, and old people, and teenagers, and disabled people. They exist. Please get used to sharing your world with them because if you carry on the way you are doing then they may not wish to share their's with you.
Let me make a few more points quite clear. I do not condone child abuse. I do not advocate pedophilia. But images of the world about us, including children, are not necessarily pornographic simply because you cannot cope with them. The law in your country (which I am not even speculating about) may be based on a specific religious viewpoint. The law elsewhere in the world does not have to agree with whatever law you choose. We don't have to have the same puritanical views of the naked body and certainly don't need to get worked up about clothed children. Next, I assume that you have already had communication with TPB telling them of your discovery - if not, why not? And, despite your best efforts, they have not removed the link. There might be several reasons for this. One, TPB do NOT host the material, merely the links. In Sweden that is not illegal. If you don't like it, move there, become a citizen and perhaps they will let you vote to change the system. Otherwise, butt out of someone else's country and affairs. Thirdly perhaps they have seen the material, unlike I presume you or I, and they have taken legal advice. Perhaps the lawyers have said that the pictures are not breaking the law. Why should they remove the link simply because it offends you? And thirdly, if you are so convinced that you can determine the content of the pictures simply by reading the title, the DO NOT DOWNLOAD THEM. Nobody is forcing you. If no-one downloads them then they will stop being made. In fact, stop using TPB or even looking at the site and the site will go away.
Finally, when you are certain that there are no pedophiles in your own country, and that your own laws a
The AC is absolutely correct. TPB is a torrent site, bayimage is an image retrieval site. So does anyone know which of the 2 sites is actually being threatened? Either? Both?
Search Google for 4chan and you can have 766,000 links, many of which lead to/b/. True, the majority link to other sites that are not of interest but if you use the advanced search options then 4chan/b/ is not specifically blocked, at least to me.
How would they filter a tor link in the UK? This whole thing seems to me to be yet another pointless waste of money that cannot achieve what is intended. Or perhaps the UK will be first to block any use of encryption, secure links or whatever. I'm sure that the banks and business will be pleased if it happens - NOT!
I suppose you had to force yourself to watch it all rather than stop and delete it as soon as you realised what it was? Just asking, because your post gives the impression that you did watch more than was necessary.
Close down the churches! Have you seen those naked cherubims dancing in the images that make up the stained glass windows? I agree with you. Children dancing or posing is not pornography. Every family has photographs of family members growing up. It is not considered pornography. There is, in my opinion, too much child exploitation but that doesn't make it pornography unless someone has a very twisted mind. As an amateur photographer, I have been asked on many occasions to take photographs of kids. Once they are over their initial shyness they often want to pose the way they have seen in the magazines or on TV. Look at the images on YouTube! Fortunately, most people can tell the difference between photography and pornography.
Have you got a picture of yourself when you were a child? Do you consider it to be child pornography? Pictures of people of any age do not become pornography simply because you imagine what others might be thinking when they look at them. The chances are that they are not at all pornographic although they may well be exploiting children who dream on one day being a famous model. But the two things are no the same. Exploitation yes, child pornography no. Now, as you seem to know that they are definitely tracking large amounts of pedophile material, would you care to tell the rest of us exactly what they are tracking? How do you know what they are tracking. Unless you have downloaded it and seen it for yourself, how do you know it is pornograhpy? Or have you made the leap in your own mind that any picture of a child is 'pornography' and, if you have, what does that say about you rather than anyone else?
Have you ever walked down a street and seen a teenager. Did you think you were looking at pornography? Or perhaps, like any normal person, seeing someone else of whatever age you care to mention is, well, normal. Now if you know that TPB has been facilitating the transfer of images showing children in 'erotic' poses or actually being abused then you are correct in your assertion that it is child pornography. But please don't suggest that any image or someone under the age of, say, 16 years is 'child pornography'. It isn't. What about the images that are produced at each class graduation? Are they pornography too? And photographs taken on a beach during the summer holidays - do they count as pornography? I would say that it is perfectly natural for a boy of 16 years to want to look at images of girls of about the same age group. So what would make them 'Underage Teen Models'. I don't know how old you are, but have you been looking at them too? I don't use TPB but I am a keen amateur photographer. I get fed up of idiots who wish to impose their own puritanical views on the rest of the world, which just happens to be far more adult over this sort of thing and can manage without having others telling us how we should think. We don't have a problem with nudist beaches either, nor naked breasts on TV.
Why bug them? Imagine they had incorrectly billed me for, say $5000, and debited my account. How long would you wait before you wanted, indeed, needed that $5000 back in your account? If the debit had caused you to be overdrawn at the bank, who would be paying the bank charges? What other bills can you no longer afford to pay? What happens to the bills that you default on? How many times have they made this mistake? We do NOT know the details of the accounts in question, but I can think of several valid reasons why 25 phone calls in one month - that less than 1 per day - would be entirely justified. Perhaps this is simply the telcos way of getting rid of those customer accounts where they have made a mistake and do not like the grief that they are now getting?
And I wasn't taking the side of the customer or the company. There can be problems on both sides and they can usually be resolved, as you and several others have pointed out, by a reasonable amount of effort and a few phone calls. But if someone had been incorrectly billed for a large sum of money that they could not afford to pay, particularly if it was taken from their account by direct debit (as is not uncommon, at least in Europe), then I would accept them making numerous phone calls to resolve it. They could be seriously overdrawn at the bank and faced with genuine debts that they now could not pay despite having correctly budgeted for them, and all because the telco had made a mistake. One phone call per day letting the company know that they hadn't credited my account with the money that they had erroneously withdrawn does not seem excessive to me. Without all of the facts we cannot make that judgment but we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand as the post that I originally replied to seemed to be suggesting.
Are you suggesting that, if they were being overcharged or billed incorrectly, they shouldn't take the issue up? If they made a reasonable query about their bill and were fobbed-off or ignored I would also be calling until I got satisfaction.
Another problem is that 'pornography' is very poorly defined. Of course, some images offend the majority and can be reasonably described as 'porn' but there are some very grey areas. Imagine the owner of the computer has made a video of his baby's first bath. Is it pornography. Of course not. What if that child was 3 or 4 years old? Who decides whether it is pornography? How about if the child was 12 years old? It would be a very unusual occurrence for a a parent to make a video of the child at that age having a bath but where is it stipulated that it becomes child pornography?
But it is not all child abuse. A video made of a child playing naked on a beach could be described as pornography, particularly if the person making the video knew nothing about the child and was not related. After all, why else would someone do such a thing? But the child has not been abused. In fact, it is probably entirely unaware of the episode. His/her rights to privacy or to be treated decently might have been trampled over but that is not the same as child abuse.
And if you want to see child pornography - go to church. Look at the images of naked cherubims in the stained glass windows. There, before your eyes, naked children as God made them, cavorting together! How come nobody reports this to the police? Simply because images of naked children are NOT pornographic by themselves. They have to be intended to titillate or arouse the viewer. And this, again, is difficult to measure. So the tech guy who feels that he has found pornography and is therefore justified in what he is doing is making an assessment based on his own morals and opinions. There have been cases in the UK where parents have found themselves in court having to explain why they took holiday snaps of their children or made a video of them in their own home, all in a loving environment that could not have been intended to titillate or arouse.
Pornography is a difficult subject in law in that no 2 people need necessarily agree on what it is. But using the term 'child pornography' is, in my opinion, often an attempt to win an argument when there is no sound logic to prove one's case. It is emotive. No-one will stand up 'for' it. Therefore linking any argument to 'think of the children' is used as a trump card to over-rule anyone else's views and arguments. Not all images of children are pornographic, not all images of children are child-abuse, and using the term 'child-abuse' or 'protecting the children' seems to me to be a second rate attempt to win a failing argument or to justify an action that, otherwise, is clearly an intrusion on someone's right to privacy.
In my opinion, the image is not the offence. Pursue those who do abuse the children and not those who wish to have a memory of their children on their computer. And it would be a very stupid criminal who sent a computer that he was using to produce pornographic images to a shop for repair. Of course, it doesn't mean it will never happen. By the way, how are things going Mr Glitter?
That seems to me to be a selective interpretation. To me, and this is only my opinion, 'most' means just that - most. The figures quoted would match my interpretation of most. What is your source for this '85% or 95%'?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean 'in no country it is allowed'. Are you an expert on every countries' laws now? Actually, some countries had no law against pornography at all until the last few years or so. They simply refused to acknowledge that it existed and therefore no laws were needed. How do you punish someone for not breaking a law that doesn't exist? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I am genuinely grateful for our discussion. But phrases like 'someone should step in' are not always appropriate, even if it is the police. Unless a law has been broken in the country concerned then our opinions are irrelevant. We may deem it to be entirely unacceptable behaviour in our own country but we do not have the right to impose our beliefs and views on any other country. Period. They each have the same right as we do to determine how they run their country despite what some politicians might want you to believe.
OK. Let me clarify. Those who exploit children by forcing them to do something against their will are guilty of a crime. I think that is what your example was about. However, not every photograph taken of a child is the result of exploitation, or if it is, it can be with both the child's and parents' consent. That is, to my view, immoral but not necessarily illegal. The resulting photographs are not illegal. Therefore, the images shouldn't be banned because no crime is being committed.
I wasn't accusing you, per se, of anything at all. But if people look at photographs of clothed children and imagine them to be erotic images designed to arouse pedophiles then they should seek help. Children are not erotic images but, if someone thinks that they are, then they need help. The world is full of children and others, as I have pointed out. Unless they are doing something in particular to act in an erotic manner we must take them as they are. They are human beings and however they appear is entirely normal. The problem lies in those who are trying to say that a particular group (e.g. preteen clothed children) should not be photographed because that is wrong. It isn't. The fault lies in the opinion and emotions of those doing the viewing, not in the physical characteristics of the child.
If someone has reported a specific torrent I would assume that it will be viewed by TPB and checked. If it is NOT ILLEGAL IN SWEDEN then they can continue to host the link. It doesn't matter what the law states in the US (i.e. where your example came from), or anywhere else for that matter. Other nations should not impose their views on what pornography is upon Sweden, or anyone else for that matter. Each nation can reach its own decision and make the laws that it feels are appropriate. The problem with /. is that it tends to be US centric and many people quote US law and say such images are breaking the law. Perhaps they are in America, but the rest of the world doesn't care a jot about US law. We don't have to. The images being described vaguely on this thread are entirely legal in many parts of the world regardless of whether you, I or anyone who is not living in those countries might think. It might be that the complaints that have been made previously are referring to material that breaks the law in their own country but not in Sweden.
I stress that I am not accusing you of anything. But, quite understandably, you seemed to be declaring the images illegal without a. having personally seen them and b. not taking into account Swedish law which might differ from your own. If I have misunderstood I apologise.
If TPB have clear evidence that a specific individual was posting unsuitable material of any kind then I am not surprised that they pulled all of his torrents. We will probably find that they will cooperate with the police in providing any evidence that they may ask for. It would be in their own interests to do so. But just pulling torrents because someone is offended or objects to the content when no law has been broken is simply censorship by vigilante. I wouldn't want that, nor do I suspect would you.
No, I don't believe that this is pornography because those who were claiming that it was were quoting their own laws and not the law that applies in this case i.e.Swedish. Secondly, pictures of clothed preteen girls, as was being quoted earlier in the thread, are not illegal of themselves.
I agree. Do not punish pedophiles for downloading but, if they commit a crime, then they should be punished. The images are irrelevant particularly as I think that we agree they are not pornographic.
I suspect that TPB are taking prudent measures but, as soon as they have received the appropriate legal advice, the images will be back. The images are not illegal so what reason could someone claim for prohibiting them?/p>
A news report from 2001 regarding the situation in the US is irrelevant. If you bother to read a "whole lot of words" then you will realise that, unless you are Swedish, your view of pornography is irrelevant in Sweden. I'm sorry if that disappoints you but you will have to learn to live with it.
Perhaps TPB are being prudent or, perhaps as a result of their checks they have ascertained that the links might be child pornography. They never said that they would serve pornography regardless of what others might think. It has been brought to their attention, they might have made checks, and they have made a decision. Good for them. It still doesn't support having the site closed down. In fact, if your belief is correct that they have remove the links then they have acted as good Swedish citizens.
A photograph of a child, clothed or naked, posed or candid, is not pornography. Lets see if the links come back up again in a few weeks, shall we?
If this has been a successful attempt at removing child pornography, I'll bet you that it will be back in another guise before we know it. You are correct, it doesn't mean that we should stop trying to remove it but we do have to make sure that the relevant laws of the relevant country are used, and not some arbitrary viewpoint from someone who has one particular standpoint on the issue. Neither your viewpoint nor mine is important.
I did not mean to give the impression that I support child exploitation. But I was making the distinction between exploitation (which this is) and pornography (which this might or might not be). See my response elsewhere for the problems that I have with 'underage teen model'. But essentially, there is not age limit for modeling (therefore one cannot be 'underage'). Secondly, your definition of pornography probably doesn't accord with the definition used by other countries. With regards to TPB then Swedish law is the appropriate law. Thirdly, I do not doubt that your experience is valid but it is yet to be proven whether TPB is breaking the law in any respect, or that these images are deemed to be pornographic in Sweden. I also believe that many pedophiles will download such files for their own gratification. Punish the pedophiles. We don't ban cars yet hundreds of thousands of people are killed and maimed each year as a result of their use. But we do punish the driver who causes the accident. Some countries still believe it is correct that anyone may carry arms, yet thousands die each year by violent crime. We punish the person who pulled the trigger. If the people taking these photographs are guilty of a crime, then they too should be punished. But a photograph of a child does not become illegal because of what someone imagines a pedophile would do if he possessed such images. I abhor pedophiles, but even so I would rather they get their thrills looking at photographs rather than being on the streets looking for a victim. We cannot make them disappear despite whatever effort we have expended to date. It is an imperfect world.
We don't 'fail to honour software patents'. There are none that are legally valid in Europe. US law doesn't apply outside of the US. But I agree with the main thrust - Swedish law is the only law relevant in this issue.
Your idea of pornography and the legal values in your country don't necessarily apply in another. You should see our TV! /p>
Your suggestion that 'someone should step in to help us see that it is unacceptable' sounds like something the school bully might say. Mind your own business and sort out your own country. The people in Sweden have democratically elected their Government and it has made the appropriate laws. If you don't like them try not to cry too loudly.
Good response to my question but not quite what I was getting at! :-)
Well, from the title alone, I haven't got a clue what it is. Are you suggesting that, although you know it is child pornography, I should still download it to find out? I hope not. Because if I download a torrent I am also uploading that torrent, and that would make me guilty of distribution of pornography which is considerably more serious than simply downloading it for my own use, but it would be a moot point because both could get me in trouble. But I go back to the title on the page that you have given me. 'Underage' - means what? There is no legal age limit before which one can model for a photograph, so that leads me nowhere. OK, lets try 'bestassets ' (sic). Perhaps her hair is her best asset, or her smile? No, we can't have photographs of children with nice hair smiling. Lets take another approach then. Is she naked? I don't know but probably not. Is she posing for the camera. Yep, but that's not illegal. Is she actually taking part in, or simulating, that act of sex? Again, I don't know but I suspect not. So what, exactly, is she doing that is illegal. NOTHING!. The illegal part is in what you imagine YOU might do to her or, perhaps being more polite, what you imagine a nasty pedophile would want to do to her. Well, punish the pedophile because, as of yet, there is no law against children being photographed. This is almost certainly a case of child exploitation but, from the information that you have given me, I cannot say that it is pornography and I do not intend to download it to find out.
I suspect that you, like many other people, have photographs of yourself and/or your children being photographed with clothes on as you/they grow up. Am I to assume therefore that you are all getting some kind of sexual thrill from looking at these pictures and therefore you are all pedophiles? No, that would be stupid. As I have already said elsewhere in this thread, the photographs that I believe you are referring to (i.e. clothed children posing for photographs) are not illegal but they seem to offend you or make you feel uneasy. That is YOUR problem. Seek help, now. Because the world is full of children, and old people, and teenagers, and disabled people. They exist. Please get used to sharing your world with them because if you carry on the way you are doing then they may not wish to share their's with you.
Let me make a few more points quite clear. I do not condone child abuse. I do not advocate pedophilia. But images of the world about us, including children, are not necessarily pornographic simply because you cannot cope with them. The law in your country (which I am not even speculating about) may be based on a specific religious viewpoint. The law elsewhere in the world does not have to agree with whatever law you choose. We don't have to have the same puritanical views of the naked body and certainly don't need to get worked up about clothed children. Next, I assume that you have already had communication with TPB telling them of your discovery - if not, why not? And, despite your best efforts, they have not removed the link. There might be several reasons for this. One, TPB do NOT host the material, merely the links. In Sweden that is not illegal. If you don't like it, move there, become a citizen and perhaps they will let you vote to change the system. Otherwise, butt out of someone else's country and affairs. Thirdly perhaps they have seen the material, unlike I presume you or I, and they have taken legal advice. Perhaps the lawyers have said that the pictures are not breaking the law. Why should they remove the link simply because it offends you? And thirdly, if you are so convinced that you can determine the content of the pictures simply by reading the title, the DO NOT DOWNLOAD THEM. Nobody is forcing you. If no-one downloads them then they will stop being made. In fact, stop using TPB or even looking at the site and the site will go away. Finally, when you are certain that there are no pedophiles in your own country, and that your own laws a
The AC is absolutely correct. TPB is a torrent site, bayimage is an image retrieval site. So does anyone know which of the 2 sites is actually being threatened? Either? Both?
Search Google for 4chan and you can have 766,000 links, many of which lead to /b/. True, the majority link to other sites that are not of interest but if you use the advanced search options then 4chan /b/ is not specifically blocked, at least to me.
How would they filter a tor link in the UK? This whole thing seems to me to be yet another pointless waste of money that cannot achieve what is intended. Or perhaps the UK will be first to block any use of encryption, secure links or whatever. I'm sure that the banks and business will be pleased if it happens - NOT!
I suppose you had to force yourself to watch it all rather than stop and delete it as soon as you realised what it was? Just asking, because your post gives the impression that you did watch more than was necessary.
Close down the churches! Have you seen those naked cherubims dancing in the images that make up the stained glass windows? I agree with you. Children dancing or posing is not pornography. Every family has photographs of family members growing up. It is not considered pornography. There is, in my opinion, too much child exploitation but that doesn't make it pornography unless someone has a very twisted mind. As an amateur photographer, I have been asked on many occasions to take photographs of kids. Once they are over their initial shyness they often want to pose the way they have seen in the magazines or on TV. Look at the images on YouTube! Fortunately, most people can tell the difference between photography and pornography.
Have you got a picture of yourself when you were a child? Do you consider it to be child pornography? Pictures of people of any age do not become pornography simply because you imagine what others might be thinking when they look at them. The chances are that they are not at all pornographic although they may well be exploiting children who dream on one day being a famous model. But the two things are no the same. Exploitation yes, child pornography no. Now, as you seem to know that they are definitely tracking large amounts of pedophile material, would you care to tell the rest of us exactly what they are tracking? How do you know what they are tracking. Unless you have downloaded it and seen it for yourself, how do you know it is pornograhpy? Or have you made the leap in your own mind that any picture of a child is 'pornography' and, if you have, what does that say about you rather than anyone else?
Have you ever walked down a street and seen a teenager. Did you think you were looking at pornography? Or perhaps, like any normal person, seeing someone else of whatever age you care to mention is, well, normal. Now if you know that TPB has been facilitating the transfer of images showing children in 'erotic' poses or actually being abused then you are correct in your assertion that it is child pornography. But please don't suggest that any image or someone under the age of, say, 16 years is 'child pornography'. It isn't. What about the images that are produced at each class graduation? Are they pornography too? And photographs taken on a beach during the summer holidays - do they count as pornography? I would say that it is perfectly natural for a boy of 16 years to want to look at images of girls of about the same age group. So what would make them 'Underage Teen Models'. I don't know how old you are, but have you been looking at them too? I don't use TPB but I am a keen amateur photographer. I get fed up of idiots who wish to impose their own puritanical views on the rest of the world, which just happens to be far more adult over this sort of thing and can manage without having others telling us how we should think. We don't have a problem with nudist beaches either, nor naked breasts on TV.
Why bug them? Imagine they had incorrectly billed me for, say $5000, and debited my account. How long would you wait before you wanted, indeed, needed that $5000 back in your account? If the debit had caused you to be overdrawn at the bank, who would be paying the bank charges? What other bills can you no longer afford to pay? What happens to the bills that you default on? How many times have they made this mistake? We do NOT know the details of the accounts in question, but I can think of several valid reasons why 25 phone calls in one month - that less than 1 per day - would be entirely justified. Perhaps this is simply the telcos way of getting rid of those customer accounts where they have made a mistake and do not like the grief that they are now getting?
And I wasn't taking the side of the customer or the company. There can be problems on both sides and they can usually be resolved, as you and several others have pointed out, by a reasonable amount of effort and a few phone calls. But if someone had been incorrectly billed for a large sum of money that they could not afford to pay, particularly if it was taken from their account by direct debit (as is not uncommon, at least in Europe), then I would accept them making numerous phone calls to resolve it. They could be seriously overdrawn at the bank and faced with genuine debts that they now could not pay despite having correctly budgeted for them, and all because the telco had made a mistake. One phone call per day letting the company know that they hadn't credited my account with the money that they had erroneously withdrawn does not seem excessive to me. Without all of the facts we cannot make that judgment but we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand as the post that I originally replied to seemed to be suggesting.
...related to billing issues.Are you suggesting that, if they were being overcharged or billed incorrectly, they shouldn't take the issue up? If they made a reasonable query about their bill and were fobbed-off or ignored I would also be calling until I got satisfaction.
Another problem is that 'pornography' is very poorly defined. Of course, some images offend the majority and can be reasonably described as 'porn' but there are some very grey areas. Imagine the owner of the computer has made a video of his baby's first bath. Is it pornography. Of course not. What if that child was 3 or 4 years old? Who decides whether it is pornography? How about if the child was 12 years old? It would be a very unusual occurrence for a a parent to make a video of the child at that age having a bath but where is it stipulated that it becomes child pornography?
But it is not all child abuse. A video made of a child playing naked on a beach could be described as pornography, particularly if the person making the video knew nothing about the child and was not related. After all, why else would someone do such a thing? But the child has not been abused. In fact, it is probably entirely unaware of the episode. His/her rights to privacy or to be treated decently might have been trampled over but that is not the same as child abuse.
And if you want to see child pornography - go to church. Look at the images of naked cherubims in the stained glass windows. There, before your eyes, naked children as God made them, cavorting together! How come nobody reports this to the police? Simply because images of naked children are NOT pornographic by themselves. They have to be intended to titillate or arouse the viewer. And this, again, is difficult to measure. So the tech guy who feels that he has found pornography and is therefore justified in what he is doing is making an assessment based on his own morals and opinions. There have been cases in the UK where parents have found themselves in court having to explain why they took holiday snaps of their children or made a video of them in their own home, all in a loving environment that could not have been intended to titillate or arouse.
Pornography is a difficult subject in law in that no 2 people need necessarily agree on what it is. But using the term 'child pornography' is, in my opinion, often an attempt to win an argument when there is no sound logic to prove one's case. It is emotive. No-one will stand up 'for' it. Therefore linking any argument to 'think of the children' is used as a trump card to over-rule anyone else's views and arguments. Not all images of children are pornographic, not all images of children are child-abuse, and using the term 'child-abuse' or 'protecting the children' seems to me to be a second rate attempt to win a failing argument or to justify an action that, otherwise, is clearly an intrusion on someone's right to privacy.
In my opinion, the image is not the offence. Pursue those who do abuse the children and not those who wish to have a memory of their children on their computer. And it would be a very stupid criminal who sent a computer that he was using to produce pornographic images to a shop for repair. Of course, it doesn't mean it will never happen. By the way, how are things going Mr Glitter?
But he included references to a car, so cut him some slack.
Keep a sense of humour.....
That seems to me to be a selective interpretation. To me, and this is only my opinion, 'most' means just that - most. The figures quoted would match my interpretation of most. What is your source for this '85% or 95%'?
And the pollution probably means that a lot of other people will stop living there, but lung disease is like that.....
I will only see the EULA if I install the software. There is nothing to say that I have to view the EULA in order to reverse engineer the software.
However, I agree with the (many) other posters - EULAs are not legally binding where I live.