There fixed that for you. HD encryption with do nothing to protect you from windows based malware.
do you ever wonder why at hacking competitions, the linux laptop never gets hacked? its because tools to hack linux systems just don't exist. it's too hard, linux is written too well, and hackers get paid to hack windows or apple PCs, apple at least has 3% market share, linux has what? 0% of desktop computers? every hack against linux, is against linux servers, because there ARE linux servers. and some of them get neglected for years even with critical security vulnerabilities announced and patches available.
No, I can hack into Linux too, at least a poorly configured ubuntu, but I admit it's more difficult/time consuming to hack into linux.
Getting into linux usually means cracking the root password, and this usually means finding a way past whatever firewalls. The way to do this is with a flash or shockwave virus, but I admit it's going to be difficult.
Those new supercomputer GPU's will come in handy though.
In this case the hacker who controls the pedophile botnet now has the power to scan through the list of IP addresses and report certain individuals to the cops
Proof this has happned, ever? Proof that a "pedophile botnet" exists?
Pedophiles don't want MASS distribution of their porn. Thay want to share it with a small (perhaps a few hundred users at most) group. They have no interest in using spammer tools to spread the proof of their highly illegal activities over millions of PCs. It would be asking for trouble, and achieve nothing.
Don't you see what could happen here or am I the only one who sees this?
Yes, you're the only one.
No what they want to do is render the laws unenforceable by distributing it as widely as possible. Similar to how we cannot stop spammers because theres just too much of it.
But to give you the benefit of a doubt, it's true that actual child molestors don't want the evidence spread all over the net, but whats that have to do with distribution? Once something is on the net this is what happens to it, it could be child porn, or warez, or regular porn, if it happens with regular porn, spam and warez, why wouldn't it apply to child porn too?
This sort of system could easily be used as a political weapon as well. Simply call it the pedophile gun and anyone who votes in a way you dislike can have child porn uploaded to their computer.
There is no reason to believe that this couldn't be targeted to specific groups of internet users.
No, I think hackers have figured out that they can use CP as a weapon. If it were just about encryption and storage they'd keep encrypting it and storing it on newsgroups.
I think this is both going to be used as a weapon by sick pedophile hacker types who will be able to say "You fuck with us and we'll pedophile you", and in that case it's literally AND interesting the first cyber weapon of this sort that I've seen.
Usually we had to worry about viruses which destroy physical property, now we have to worry about viruses which can destroy our lives. In this case the hacker who controls the pedophile botnet now has the power to scan through the list of IP addresses and report certain individuals to the cops and ignore others, allowing them to both store the illegal porn, spy on random people, and literally destroy the lives of people who piss them off.
Suppose the hacker who wrote this is a Republican, and discovers a certain infected user is a Democrat, whats to stop this Republican botnet owner from deciding to upload a bunch of child porn and then sending a well placed phone call to the local prosecutors office?
Don't you see what could happen here or am I the only one who sees this? Encryption wont work because most people don't know how to properly use it, and when the authorities are at your door, or some thugs threaten to kill your family, you'll give up all your keys anyway, making encryption next to useless.
You may know everything about the law, but if you just were to buy a book on C, or C++, or Java script, or visual basic, you can easily learn how to write a virus which does exactly that.
Why did people write viruses to destroy peoples harddrives back in the day? Remember those viruses that would literally nuke a harddrive and ruin it?
Why do people continue to write viruses which destroy?
The simple reason is, if you hate someone and want to kill them physically but can't do it, sending them a virus and getting them labeled a pedophile is a punishment equal to killing them, and some would say it's a punishment worse than death itself.
I can imagine plenty of people who if they had the knowledge, would write viruses like this and send them to all the people they hate. And I can imagine these same people then reporting them to the prosecutor and having that person get labeled a pedophile.
Don't you realize that this could be you? Any hacker who is pissed off at you could wait for you to leave your wifi open on your lan, then sneak and upload a package to your network, or they could take the direct approach of just emailing you the virus or sending you a website which infects you through a flash video file.
Once infected the virus could create a child porn botnet. Why would they do this? There are many reasons, but I'll list a few that come to mind.
A. It's a way to hurt people you hate (obvious).
B. It's a way to protect the actual child pronographers by wasting police resources.
C. It''s a way into your machine.
While it's possible that yes some people are going around downloading child porn, it's equally technically possible and perhaps even more likely that a virus could infect them with child porn in the same way our email accounts are all infected by spam.
But we don't have anti spam laws which label those who posses the spam in their email account as pedophiles, here in the spam example somehow our laws are rational and we go after the distributors of spam, but somehow when it's pedophiles all reason and rationality is thrown out the window and suddenly its okay to have a witch hunt and just arrest anyone even remotely associated with child pornography to the point now where just looking at it by accident means prison time.
So yes, I can see some hateful destructive types of individuals using child porn as a weapon simply because they can do it and get away with it and the laws are so technologically ignorant in most cases that usually the person who has it on the harddrive goes to prison and is labeled a pedophile, and since that could be anyone it's equal to giving the script kiddie a pedophile gun from which they can take out all their enemies, political or imagined.
They did fire him -- they fired him and never asked any questions. The investigation was by the prosecutor, not his employer. I wonder if he will be hired back with back pay. What you are saying is, this guy who probably was set up by some hacker who didn't like him, could have gone to prison for who knows how long just because of some images on his computer?
Unless the prosecutors have a pattern of pedophile like habits, such as search records or just some evidence besides the pictures, how can we ever be sure that the guy is a pedophile?
Anyone can download something by mistake, or be tricked into accepting a file. If thats all it takes to make someone a pedophile now, and if prosecutors are that desperate that they'll take these sorts of cases seriously, it's actually probably going to result in helping the REAL pedophiles.
The phrase "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" comes to mind. Forensic analysis of the machine apparently showed it to be severely compromised by malware. Allow me to quote from one of TFAs:
"What I found is, he would log in to the state's Web site, he'd be on for five or 10 minutes and during the exact same time that he's filling out a form, an image shows up, out of nowhere. No typed [Uniform Resource Locator], no search, no Web site activity, just bam, a cached image shows up on his computer," Loehrs said. The offending images were located in the laptop's browser cache directory.
"He'd have 40 Web sites hitting his computer in a minute -- who's the IT guy who looked at this and said, "Wow, this guy is pretty active on the Internet?'" Loehrs said. "It's physically impossible!"
Loehrs found a script file that was set to go out and run its own searches on foreign Web sites, she said. "And once you get into some of these foreign sites, you'll get all kinds of stuff you don't want to see.
"Actually, the child pornography was just a very small portion of it. The majority was just bizarre porn. He was being hit with everything," she added. Are you still so certain of your position? It's not enough that there are word macro viruses and viruses all over limeware and flash viruses, but now we have to worry about scripts which infect us with kiddie porn.
How to defend against this? Harddrive encryption.
And if you see anything illegal, reformat immediately.
The truth, well, it depends, when they decide who is or isn't a pedophile do they check search records, or do they just find a bunch of illegal images on a computer and scream PEDOPHILE!
Look, we are here on slashdot discussing this as if we don't have the technical skill to use CP as a weapon to get people fired. It's really simple write a bot, and then upload your enemy list in encrypted form to that bot server in whatever location and have that bot send a bunch of child porn to all the people you dislike.
9 times out of 10, most men will accept any photograph of what they think is a hot chick, not knowing what it is before they open it, it could be child porn, it could be a virus, they don't know. The problem is once the child porn is on their computer then they get reported and their computer gets checked for child porn.
They then undelete everything and find that one photo was on the computer for a split second.
This alone is enough to get a person fired. Personally, in my opinion, unless a person has LOTS of child porn, I don't think it's right to report them over one image found somewhere on their drive.
If we go by those standards then only the most paranoid of internet users will be able to avoid being infected with child porn. The situation is messed up but I wont label pedophile so easily.
In my opinion you did the right thing. It's becoming way too easy to label someone a pedophile, at this point any hacker can get just about all of their enemies labeled a pedophile by simply hacking into their enemies computers, uploading the child porn, storing it in some secret hidden directory they can't see, and then alerting the proper authorities.
It's fucked up, but just like there were people writing viruses which would destroy computers, there will be people who spend all their time trying to destroy peoples lives using child porn as a weapon to get people mislabeled into a pedophile.
If all it takes to get labeled a pedophile is to be caught with child porn on your computer, how hard will it be to make you look like a pedophile?
You probably wont have to look for child porn or search for it or anything, I doubt the authorities check search records in these cases to see if the person was searching for child porn, they probably just see the pictures on the computer and scream pedophile.
It's not as simple as saying the system was compromised before he got it. The system could have been compromised while in his possession and it still might not be his fault.
Who's fault is it if some hacker deliberately sends him child porn labeled as regular porn? And what is he supposed to do?
Sure people like us, we know how to wipe the drive to the point where it's completely deleted and we know about drive encryption mechanisms and all that, but this guy probably does not know this.
It's easily possible that some evil hacker decided to infect him with CP on purpose as a way to get him fired from his job.
Maybe it was not visible to the naked eye because he deleted it. I don't know, but I can easily see a situation where some script kiddie creates a bot which trolls chatrooms and which sends random users child porn and then sends the feds after them.
It probably would not take a lot of time to write such a bot, or to trick the typical horny middle aged male to accept a picture of what they think is an adult woman, only to find out later it's child porn. But whats he supposed to do? his computer has been infected.
So now he has to reformat his entire computer. I can see this being the new WinNuke.
It just seems immensly more likely that he got infected by malware from surfing porn sites, than getting infected by porn from having malware. If there are hackers evil enough to write viruses which literally destroy peoples hard drivers, I don't put it past this breed of hacker to write viruses to infect peoples computers with child porn.
At this point, having child pornography on your computer is like being infected with a virus, only this virus is child porn. The only way to get it off is to basically reformat your drive. If you were smart your drive was encrypted and that reformat will be the end of it, and if you aren't so smart then there could be traces of child porn (invisible to the naked eye) which could still be on your machine.
The point is, this guy probably deleted whatever child porn the malware sent to him. Thus it was invisible to the naked eye. Yet that doesn't change the fact that his computer still legally contained the 1s and 0s in a form which is still illegal.
So while I do think there are pedophiles, I don't think this guy is one of them. And this is the sorta situation that our ridiculous child porn laws create.
If it were made into a crime do you realize I could sue you just because I don't like what you wrote on Slashdot?
You've conflated the end result (someone's feelings being hurt) and the cause (a complex series of lies.) While I don't believe the end result should be made illegal, it is the motivating factor to eliminate the cause (lying).
And I don't think lying should be made into a crime either.
Why is it a crime in financial matters then? What's the difference?
Financial damage is measurable, emotional damage is not. I have no way of knowing what you feel or whether or not you have feelings at all.
In your case, you are lucky that I assume you do have feelings, but these assumptions I make are based merely on appearances and nothing more.
I can understand how another person, especially over the internet, could assume that the whole of the internet is fake and treat the internet with complete disregard for reality, because you can't see what someone feels over the net.
So when you say individual x hurt individual y's feelings, how could individual x hurt individual y when there is no way for individual x to know what individual y feels?
The point, feelings cannot be measured. We don't even know that they are real over the internet. We don't have helmets to attach us to brain scan devices.
Even if we did, not everyone believes that thoughts are real. Money on the other hand deals with material objects, not subjective reality and is objectively real and measurable.
Yes perhaps thats why the US is against the war in Iraq. The fact that the war hasn't resulted in lower gas prices is why.
Of course we could say that Iraq just isn't stable enough due to the fact that Iran is messing with the pipelines and influencing OPEC. Thats when the reasoning tells us that by going to war with Iran we can take all the oil in the middle east, as well as strategically having energy advantage over China and Russia.
The end result is supposed to be a stronger US economy, it's supposed to save us from another depression, it's supposed to allow us to dominate in the global economy.
In the US, yes. Obviously. While racism plays a large part, the fact is that per capita black Americans DO commit more crimes than other poor Americans (white, latino, asian, etc.). I'm not going to speculate as to the reasons.
I agreed with most of what you said until you said blacks commit more crimes. It's technically and scientifically impossible for blacks to commit more crime when they make up a smaller percentage of the population than both Hispanics and White Americans.
Perhaps you meant per capita or some other measurement based on arrest records. The truth is, black individuals are arrested for more crimes and these arrests are kept on record.
Illegal immigrants might be arrested but they aren't citizens so we may or may not have them on record. White individuals, the individuals who commit the most crimes, often are above being arrested and so they can get away with murder, or robbery by simply calling their lawyers, bribing law enforcement, or by changing the laws in such a way so that their form of stealing and murder is legal but the black drug dealer who cannot afford a lawyer at all but who does not steal or murder can be locked away for drug dealing.
To make it simple, if America is racist, it's justice system is probably racist as well. This would mean cops, judges, and lawmakers who create and define what is legal or illegal.
This is not the same as saying blacks are more aggressive. History shows that blacks are probably among the least aggressive towards other races. Of course black on black crime is something different but what it means is nobody had or has to worry about blacks organizing an army and raiding the suburbs, or rioting across the USA, it's not going to happen.
Which I believe is too narrow and not properly applied. The threshold for the insanity defense is that the defendant must not be capable of understanding that SOMEONE ELSE thinks he committed a crime. So if the defendant thinks he's Jesus and attacked someone because he thought they were the Antichrist, if the defendant can understand that SOMEONE ELSE disagrees with that, he's considered "sane" even though HE thinks he's Jesus and his victim was the Antichrist. If he refuses to answer, he's also considered "sane". The only way to get an insanity defense is to literally be incapable of understanding the speech of others, i.e. extremely severe schizophrenia in which you say one thing to the schizophrenic and he "hears" something completely different. ALL THE TIME.
This is fine, we should accept that brains and thoughts create actions and behavior. We should know that the lack of self control means the reduction and exclusion of free will. However if you have self control then you are capable of reason, and if you have reason you have at least some kind of free will.
Whether or not you have that free will after suffering brain damage is another question. In my opinion if someone commits a crime they should receive the option to have their brain scanned for damage to see whether or not their brain functions normally or not. If we find their brain does not function normally, we shouldn't just release them into the free world, but at least we will know what we are dealing with and can see that this problem is a problem that needs to be cured and not punished.
You cannot punish or beat a mental disorder out of a person. You can only punish the behavior. So they should still go to prison as a disincentive against the behavior, and we should probably reorganize our society to provide incentives for good behavior instead of just expecting everyone to be Christian, or just assuming everyone has a fully functioning brain and will make reasonable choices.
The main reason capitalism doesn't work is we assume everyone is a rational/reasonable human. The truth is, capitalism is a tool which we should use to modify human behavior so as to make it rational and reasonable.
If you are a reasonable person you'll understand exactly what I'
Now, the study was done in China and we can debate whether or not it can be trusted, but considering how corrupt our government is with giving FDA approval and authorizing tainted beef and who knows what else, the information I provide is fair and balanced and up for the analysis and interpretation of the reader.
Now, if you want to debate whether thesource is reputable, go ahead. Based on my knowledge of fluoride, and based on my experiences in other countries where they don't have fluoride in their childrens toothpaste and somehow the IQ scores in Europe just happen to be higher than the IQ scores in the USA, I'm willing to consider the possibility or even the likelyhood that long term consumption fluoride is bad for brain health.
This isn't about whether bullying is right or wrong, this is about whether or not virtual bullying should be a crime.
I don't think we should have virtual crimes. I don't agree with thought control laws.
She was thirteen, a time when many are having trouble with new feelings and emotions. That's why she shouldn't have been on the internet unsupervised in the first place.
Suicide over breakups are always going to happen. Someone could commit suicide when you break up with them, should you get sued for it? Hell no.
If someone wants to commit suicide they are going to do it and it has nothing to do with who they date or what words are said to them. Now sure, if it were something more than words, then I'd say they have a right to sue, but if it's just words, to sue someone for mere words is a form of thought control.
Next we will be able to sue white racists for hosting hate sites which cause non-white readers to commit suicide after reading the site.
Do you see where this could lead? It's going to be applied to EVERY situation because it's an irrational law.
There are already plenty of laws that cover bullying, just not specifically.
Really though, all one needs to do to counteract real bullying is to retaliate with equal amounts of physical violence. That usually ends bullying real quick. It's best to get that out of your system anyway, as beating the shit out of assholes will get you arrested once you grow up.;)
Not with gun control. Sure it used to be that if you go bullied, you show up to school with a gun and put an end to it, or at least thats how natural law would handle bullying.
However, parents have decided that there are too many guns and that the only way to deal with bullies is by lawsuits and restraining orders.
So no, physical violence isn't the only way to deal with bullies. In fact, most lawmakers would rather we call our lawyers than get our guns.
Slashdot Mirror
There fixed that for you. HD encryption with do nothing to protect you from windows based malware.
do you ever wonder why at hacking competitions, the linux laptop never gets hacked? its because tools to hack linux systems just don't exist. it's too hard, linux is written too well, and hackers get paid to hack windows or apple PCs, apple at least has 3% market share, linux has what? 0% of desktop computers? every hack against linux, is against linux servers, because there ARE linux servers. and some of them get neglected for years even with critical security vulnerabilities announced and patches available.
No, I can hack into Linux too, at least a poorly configured ubuntu, but I admit it's more difficult/time consuming to hack into linux.Getting into linux usually means cracking the root password, and this usually means finding a way past whatever firewalls. The way to do this is with a flash or shockwave virus, but I admit it's going to be difficult.
Those new supercomputer GPU's will come in handy though.
Proof this has happned, ever? Proof that a "pedophile botnet" exists?
Pedophiles don't want MASS distribution of their porn. Thay want to share it with a small (perhaps a few hundred users at most) group. They have no interest in using spammer tools to spread the proof of their highly illegal activities over millions of PCs. It would be asking for trouble, and achieve nothing.
Don't you see what could happen here or am I the only one who sees this?
No what they want to do is render the laws unenforceable by distributing it as widely as possible. Similar to how we cannot stop spammers because theres just too much of it.Yes, you're the only one.
But to give you the benefit of a doubt, it's true that actual child molestors don't want the evidence spread all over the net, but whats that have to do with distribution? Once something is on the net this is what happens to it, it could be child porn, or warez, or regular porn, if it happens with regular porn, spam and warez, why wouldn't it apply to child porn too?
This sort of system could easily be used as a political weapon as well. Simply call it the pedophile gun and anyone who votes in a way you dislike can have child porn uploaded to their computer.
There is no reason to believe that this couldn't be targeted to specific groups of internet users.
No, I think hackers have figured out that they can use CP as a weapon. If it were just about encryption and storage they'd keep encrypting it and storing it on newsgroups.
I think this is both going to be used as a weapon by sick pedophile hacker types who will be able to say "You fuck with us and we'll pedophile you", and in that case it's literally AND interesting the first cyber weapon of this sort that I've seen.
Usually we had to worry about viruses which destroy physical property, now we have to worry about viruses which can destroy our lives. In this case the hacker who controls the pedophile botnet now has the power to scan through the list of IP addresses and report certain individuals to the cops and ignore others, allowing them to both store the illegal porn, spy on random people, and literally destroy the lives of people who piss them off.
Suppose the hacker who wrote this is a Republican, and discovers a certain infected user is a Democrat, whats to stop this Republican botnet owner from deciding to upload a bunch of child porn and then sending a well placed phone call to the local prosecutors office?
Don't you see what could happen here or am I the only one who sees this? Encryption wont work because most people don't know how to properly use it, and when the authorities are at your door, or some thugs threaten to kill your family, you'll give up all your keys anyway, making encryption next to useless.
You may know everything about the law, but if you just were to buy a book on C, or C++, or Java script, or visual basic, you can easily learn how to write a virus which does exactly that.
Why did people write viruses to destroy peoples harddrives back in the day? Remember those viruses that would literally nuke a harddrive and ruin it?
Why do people continue to write viruses which destroy?
The simple reason is, if you hate someone and want to kill them physically but can't do it, sending them a virus and getting them labeled a pedophile is a punishment equal to killing them, and some would say it's a punishment worse than death itself.
I can imagine plenty of people who if they had the knowledge, would write viruses like this and send them to all the people they hate. And I can imagine these same people then reporting them to the prosecutor and having that person get labeled a pedophile.
Don't you realize that this could be you? Any hacker who is pissed off at you could wait for you to leave your wifi open on your lan, then sneak and upload a package to your network, or they could take the direct approach of just emailing you the virus or sending you a website which infects you through a flash video file.
Once infected the virus could create a child porn botnet. Why would they do this? There are many reasons, but I'll list a few that come to mind.
A. It's a way to hurt people you hate (obvious).
B. It's a way to protect the actual child pronographers by wasting police resources.
C. It''s a way into your machine.
While it's possible that yes some people are going around downloading child porn, it's equally technically possible and perhaps even more likely that a virus could infect them with child porn in the same way our email accounts are all infected by spam.
But we don't have anti spam laws which label those who posses the spam in their email account as pedophiles, here in the spam example somehow our laws are rational and we go after the distributors of spam, but somehow when it's pedophiles all reason and rationality is thrown out the window and suddenly its okay to have a witch hunt and just arrest anyone even remotely associated with child pornography to the point now where just looking at it by accident means prison time.
So yes, I can see some hateful destructive types of individuals using child porn as a weapon simply because they can do it and get away with it and the laws are so technologically ignorant in most cases that usually the person who has it on the harddrive goes to prison and is labeled a pedophile, and since that could be anyone it's equal to giving the script kiddie a pedophile gun from which they can take out all their enemies, political or imagined.
Unless the prosecutors have a pattern of pedophile like habits, such as search records or just some evidence besides the pictures, how can we ever be sure that the guy is a pedophile?
Anyone can download something by mistake, or be tricked into accepting a file. If thats all it takes to make someone a pedophile now, and if prosecutors are that desperate that they'll take these sorts of cases seriously, it's actually probably going to result in helping the REAL pedophiles.
"He'd have 40 Web sites hitting his computer in a minute -- who's the IT guy who looked at this and said, "Wow, this guy is pretty active on the Internet?'" Loehrs said. "It's physically impossible!"
Loehrs found a script file that was set to go out and run its own searches on foreign Web sites, she said. "And once you get into some of these foreign sites, you'll get all kinds of stuff you don't want to see.
"Actually, the child pornography was just a very small portion of it. The majority was just bizarre porn. He was being hit with everything," she added. Are you still so certain of your position? It's not enough that there are word macro viruses and viruses all over limeware and flash viruses, but now we have to worry about scripts which infect us with kiddie porn.
How to defend against this? Harddrive encryption.
And if you see anything illegal, reformat immediately.
The truth, well, it depends, when they decide who is or isn't a pedophile do they check search records, or do they just find a bunch of illegal images on a computer and scream PEDOPHILE!
Now the hackers run the corporations, how?
You fcuk with the hackers and they'll pedophile you.
Look, we are here on slashdot discussing this as if we don't have the technical skill to use CP as a weapon to get people fired. It's really simple write a bot, and then upload your enemy list in encrypted form to that bot server in whatever location and have that bot send a bunch of child porn to all the people you dislike.
9 times out of 10, most men will accept any photograph of what they think is a hot chick, not knowing what it is before they open it, it could be child porn, it could be a virus, they don't know. The problem is once the child porn is on their computer then they get reported and their computer gets checked for child porn.
They then undelete everything and find that one photo was on the computer for a split second.
This alone is enough to get a person fired. Personally, in my opinion, unless a person has LOTS of child porn, I don't think it's right to report them over one image found somewhere on their drive.
If we go by those standards then only the most paranoid of internet users will be able to avoid being infected with child porn. The situation is messed up but I wont label pedophile so easily.
In my opinion you did the right thing. It's becoming way too easy to label someone a pedophile, at this point any hacker can get just about all of their enemies labeled a pedophile by simply hacking into their enemies computers, uploading the child porn, storing it in some secret hidden directory they can't see, and then alerting the proper authorities.
It's fucked up, but just like there were people writing viruses which would destroy computers, there will be people who spend all their time trying to destroy peoples lives using child porn as a weapon to get people mislabeled into a pedophile.
If all it takes to get labeled a pedophile is to be caught with child porn on your computer, how hard will it be to make you look like a pedophile?
You probably wont have to look for child porn or search for it or anything, I doubt the authorities check search records in these cases to see if the person was searching for child porn, they probably just see the pictures on the computer and scream pedophile.
It's not as simple as saying the system was compromised before he got it. The system could have been compromised while in his possession and it still might not be his fault.
Who's fault is it if some hacker deliberately sends him child porn labeled as regular porn? And what is he supposed to do?
Sure people like us, we know how to wipe the drive to the point where it's completely deleted and we know about drive encryption mechanisms and all that, but this guy probably does not know this.
It's easily possible that some evil hacker decided to infect him with CP on purpose as a way to get him fired from his job.
Maybe it was not visible to the naked eye because he deleted it. I don't know, but I can easily see a situation where some script kiddie creates a bot which trolls chatrooms and which sends random users child porn and then sends the feds after them.
It probably would not take a lot of time to write such a bot, or to trick the typical horny middle aged male to accept a picture of what they think is an adult woman, only to find out later it's child porn. But whats he supposed to do? his computer has been infected.
So now he has to reformat his entire computer. I can see this being the new WinNuke.
At this point, having child pornography on your computer is like being infected with a virus, only this virus is child porn. The only way to get it off is to basically reformat your drive. If you were smart your drive was encrypted and that reformat will be the end of it, and if you aren't so smart then there could be traces of child porn (invisible to the naked eye) which could still be on your machine.
The point is, this guy probably deleted whatever child porn the malware sent to him. Thus it was invisible to the naked eye. Yet that doesn't change the fact that his computer still legally contained the 1s and 0s in a form which is still illegal.
So while I do think there are pedophiles, I don't think this guy is one of them. And this is the sorta situation that our ridiculous child porn laws create.
You've conflated the end result (someone's feelings being hurt) and the cause (a complex series of lies.) While I don't believe the end result should be made illegal, it is the motivating factor to eliminate the cause (lying).
Why is it a crime in financial matters then? What's the difference?
Financial damage is measurable, emotional damage is not. I have no way of knowing what you feel or whether or not you have feelings at all.In your case, you are lucky that I assume you do have feelings, but these assumptions I make are based merely on appearances and nothing more.
I can understand how another person, especially over the internet, could assume that the whole of the internet is fake and treat the internet with complete disregard for reality, because you can't see what someone feels over the net.
So when you say individual x hurt individual y's feelings, how could individual x hurt individual y when there is no way for individual x to know what individual y feels?
The point, feelings cannot be measured. We don't even know that they are real over the internet. We don't have helmets to attach us to brain scan devices.
Even if we did, not everyone believes that thoughts are real. Money on the other hand deals with material objects, not subjective reality and is objectively real and measurable.
Yes perhaps thats why the US is against the war in Iraq. The fact that the war hasn't resulted in lower gas prices is why.
Of course we could say that Iraq just isn't stable enough due to the fact that Iran is messing with the pipelines and influencing OPEC. Thats when the reasoning tells us that by going to war with Iran we can take all the oil in the middle east, as well as strategically having energy advantage over China and Russia.
The end result is supposed to be a stronger US economy, it's supposed to save us from another depression, it's supposed to allow us to dominate in the global economy.
And I don't think lying should be made into a crime either.
Hurting someones feelings is not a crime and absolutely should not be made into a crime.
If it were made into a crime do you realize I could sue you just because I don't like what you wrote on Slashdot?
In the US, yes. Obviously. While racism plays a large part, the fact is that per capita black Americans DO commit more crimes than other poor Americans (white, latino, asian, etc.). I'm not going to speculate as to the reasons.
I agreed with most of what you said until you said blacks commit more crimes. It's technically and scientifically impossible for blacks to commit more crime when they make up a smaller percentage of the population than both Hispanics and White Americans.
Perhaps you meant per capita or some other measurement based on arrest records. The truth is, black individuals are arrested for more crimes and these arrests are kept on record.
Illegal immigrants might be arrested but they aren't citizens so we may or may not have them on record. White individuals, the individuals who commit the most crimes, often are above being arrested and so they can get away with murder, or robbery by simply calling their lawyers, bribing law enforcement, or by changing the laws in such a way so that their form of stealing and murder is legal but the black drug dealer who cannot afford a lawyer at all but who does not steal or murder can be locked away for drug dealing.
To make it simple, if America is racist, it's justice system is probably racist as well. This would mean cops, judges, and lawmakers who create and define what is legal or illegal.
This is not the same as saying blacks are more aggressive. History shows that blacks are probably among the least aggressive towards other races. Of course black on black crime is something different but what it means is nobody had or has to worry about blacks organizing an army and raiding the suburbs, or rioting across the USA, it's not going to happen.
Which I believe is too narrow and not properly applied. The threshold for the insanity defense is that the defendant must not be capable of understanding that SOMEONE ELSE thinks he committed a crime. So if the defendant thinks he's Jesus and attacked someone because he thought they were the Antichrist, if the defendant can understand that SOMEONE ELSE disagrees with that, he's considered "sane" even though HE thinks he's Jesus and his victim was the Antichrist. If he refuses to answer, he's also considered "sane". The only way to get an insanity defense is to literally be incapable of understanding the speech of others, i.e. extremely severe schizophrenia in which you say one thing to the schizophrenic and he "hears" something completely different. ALL THE TIME.
This is fine, we should accept that brains and thoughts create actions and behavior. We should know that the lack of self control means the reduction and exclusion of free will. However if you have self control then you are capable of reason, and if you have reason you have at least some kind of free will.
Whether or not you have that free will after suffering brain damage is another question. In my opinion if someone commits a crime they should receive the option to have their brain scanned for damage to see whether or not their brain functions normally or not. If we find their brain does not function normally, we shouldn't just release them into the free world, but at least we will know what we are dealing with and can see that this problem is a problem that needs to be cured and not punished.
You cannot punish or beat a mental disorder out of a person. You can only punish the behavior. So they should still go to prison as a disincentive against the behavior, and we should probably reorganize our society to provide incentives for good behavior instead of just expecting everyone to be Christian, or just assuming everyone has a fully functioning brain and will make reasonable choices.
The main reason capitalism doesn't work is we assume everyone is a rational/reasonable human. The truth is, capitalism is a tool which we should use to modify human behavior so as to make it rational and reasonable.
If you are a reasonable person you'll understand exactly what I'
I merely said fluoride is a neurotoxin, and it is.
The proof is here:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1852689
Now, the study was done in China and we can debate whether or not it can be trusted, but considering how corrupt our government is with giving FDA approval and authorizing tainted beef and who knows what else, the information I provide is fair and balanced and up for the analysis and interpretation of the reader.
Now, if you want to debate whether thesource is reputable, go ahead. Based on my knowledge of fluoride, and based on my experiences in other countries where they don't have fluoride in their childrens toothpaste and somehow the IQ scores in Europe just happen to be higher than the IQ scores in the USA, I'm willing to consider the possibility or even the likelyhood that long term consumption fluoride is bad for brain health.
Even the toothpaste says do not swallow.
While it's probably in our best interest to avoid a war with Iran, when oil passes $150, I think at that point it's unavoidable.
Just bring your cellphone/calculator dude.
Maybe we can build a calculator into our credit card.
Worst stuff has happen to me.
And DOS attacks and identity theft are real crime with real financial consequences.
It's not an emotional crime or thought crime.
Worst stuff has happen to me.
And DOS attacks and identity theft are real crime with real financial consequences.
It's not an emotion crime or thought crime.
Brain damaged caused by lead, mercury, fluoride and other chemicals do far more to increase crime rates than music and video games.
And unlike the theory behind music and video games causing crime, the theory that lead poisoning causes crime is hard science.
The evidence is clear, lead in the environment causes brain damage, and damaged brains are criminal brains.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-28-lead-crime_N.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/ban-on-leaded-petrol-has-cut-crime-rates-around-the-world-398151.html
Lots of us have experienced mean cruel people.
This isn't about whether bullying is right or wrong, this is about whether or not virtual bullying should be a crime.
I don't think we should have virtual crimes. I don't agree with thought control laws.
She was thirteen, a time when many are having trouble with new feelings and emotions. That's why she shouldn't have been on the internet unsupervised in the first place.
Suicide over breakups are always going to happen. Someone could commit suicide when you break up with them, should you get sued for it? Hell no.
If someone wants to commit suicide they are going to do it and it has nothing to do with who they date or what words are said to them. Now sure, if it were something more than words, then I'd say they have a right to sue, but if it's just words, to sue someone for mere words is a form of thought control.
Next we will be able to sue white racists for hosting hate sites which cause non-white readers to commit suicide after reading the site.
Do you see where this could lead? It's going to be applied to EVERY situation because it's an irrational law.
Really though, all one needs to do to counteract real bullying is to retaliate with equal amounts of physical violence. That usually ends bullying real quick. It's best to get that out of your system anyway, as beating the shit out of assholes will get you arrested once you grow up. ;)
Not with gun control. Sure it used to be that if you go bullied, you show up to school with a gun and put an end to it, or at least thats how natural law would handle bullying.However, parents have decided that there are too many guns and that the only way to deal with bullies is by lawsuits and restraining orders.
So no, physical violence isn't the only way to deal with bullies. In fact, most lawmakers would rather we call our lawyers than get our guns.