Yes you can teach morality, to strengthen conscience, however conscience is something based on natural intuition that people are born with, or not. Some of us are born with the ability to be good at having a conscience just as some of us are born to be good at math, or born to be good at reading or not.
So you can teach someone without a conscience to behave, and to develop a rational conscience, it's just far more difficult to teach a person who lacks the innate ability. It's like anything else really, some people have the conscience talent and some don't. Child soldiers, you are acting as if every child would equally be a good child soldier. Most child soldiers, are damaged and feel a lot of remorse, just later. Children generally can be trained into killing machines not because they lack remorse, or conscience, but because their conscience is not complex enough or firm enough to avoid being molded by religion.
Adults on the other hand, they know right from wrong based on experience, because they know what is rational and or irrational and it matches up with their conscience. Ethics are rational, but you don't really understand this as a kid even if you have the natural ability, you wont really know what you are doing at 5. So I agree, that we must spend more time training children in ethics, and do a better job teaching reasoning ability.
Censorship does not work, as censoring words, or violence, it does not really influence conscience at all, however it can keep your kid from being violent if they lack a conscience. At the same time when you make something forbidden you risk making it "cool" to be violent too. This is actually true, it's a big debate now in the psychology world as to how to teach conscience, and the tests have been done on prisoners with moderate success. Prisoners can be taught right from wrong, but their concept of right and wrong is narrow and based on the influence it has on themself, not the influence it has on anyone else, as they are the center of their world and you are the guest, you have to explain how it's in their best interest to act ethical and stop being a criminal. Most people CAN learn to not be a criminal because they fear going to jail. Most criminals want to stay out of jail and enjoy their lives,
problem is, it's so simple to just take whatever you want simply because you can, and it's so simple to just do whatever you want simply because you can, that you have to actually explain to people why it's RATIONAL to limit their freedoms. Easier said than done.
It's not dogma, it's based on statistics. Study the prison population, study the criminals, about 20% of the prison population are psychopaths, about 20% of prisoners give or take, don't feel any guilt at all for what they have done, and just don't give a fuck about you, me, or themselves.
You can call it dogma, but you know that these sorts of people exist and are common, you've met people with the "I don't give a fuck" attitude before havent you? Hell you may even have that attitude yourself. The difference is, when a psychopath has that attitude, they actually mean it. All violent acts, are violent expressions of violent thoughts, so it makes more sense to study psychology than numbers, as the brain does control the actions of the body, not statistics.
If you don't want to call these people psychopath murderers, fine, call them evil, or better, evil psychopaths. Don't get me wrong, not all psychopaths are evil, it takes a certain mix. Either way it's important to study criminology and the criminal mind, this is what he police and FBI do when they want to solve a crime or prevent crime. So if the FBI is involved, they already know if this guy is psycho or not, and they know about his wife too, and if he is a suspect it might be for a lot of very specific reasons.
First you have to ask, is this guy capable of killing his wife? Okay sure, depending on the situation anyone is capable of killing anyone, so was he suicidal? was he depressed during the informal interview? Just look at Scott Peterson, he was interviewed on national TV and because he displayed all the signs of a psychopath in his response, this is one of the main reasons why the public turned against him. He displayed no remorse at all to the general public, and it scared people, and when he did display emotion, it did not even seem real, it looked forced.
If you want peer reviewed studys, use Google, if you want to study criminology, go study it, everyone knows about the criminal mind, if you want to study how people can commit these crimes in the first place, study psychology, as it takes a certain personality type to actually pull off THIS sorta crime, not manslaughter, not homicide, this was murder, planned out, not the sorta crime that normal people spend all night and day thinking about. Normal people don't even hit their wife.
Let's hope, that it's not as bad as it seems or that some information is missing, because if it isnt, he could get convicted, and yes the jury will take his psychological profile into account when it's brought up in the case.
Show me that the world is filled with empathy, compassion, and remorse.
Show me the level of global guilt, because if you were an alien species looking at this world, you would think that psychopath was the natural state of human existance.
To presume all who commit crimes are suffering from mental illness, or are in some way less human, is a common error. We wish to distance ourselves from those we consider evil, by claiming that we could never do such a thing. But make no mistake; this is denial, plain and simple.
I never said psychopaths were LESS human, in fact they may actually be MORE human.
Criminality is a mental illness, or not being a criminal is a mental illness, pick.
I never said all psychopaths are criminals. I never said all psychopaths are violent. Read precisely what I said, psychopaths do not feel guilt, remorse, or empathy, and there are a lot of people who don't feel guilt, remorse or empathy, enuogh that I'd say it's normal. I'd guess around 20% of the population, this is a guess and it could be wrong, but it's enough people that there are people in your family, friends, people at work (like your boss), and ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends who were/are psycho. It's as common as any other trait, like fat people, everyone knows a few, or like short people, or tall people, etc.
That's not to say that there aren't criminal psychopaths in the world; rather it is to admit that average, mentally healthy people, under the right conditions, can do things we as a society consider monsterous. For every psycho killing people at random, there are a dozen "average" people killing for revenge, for profit, for ideology, or for any number of other reasons.
The average people almost always commit suicide immediately after they commit violent acts. The average person can kill sure, but not willingly, and not out of greed. If you kill for money, that's a sign of lack of empathy right there. If you kill out of passion, in an angry outburst, or in a suicidal rage, or in a fight, or in self defense, these are normal situations.
Like I said before though, psychopaths are more normal and MORE human than everyone else. This is why you say that murder and other acts are normal, it's normal because empathy, compassion and remorse are abnormal in human nature, very much like altruism is abnormal, or self love is abnormal. Let's face it, it's never rational to commit these sorts of act's when a person who isnt a psychopath commits these acts, however a psychopath can more easily rationalize the taking of a life because there is less value placed on life, partially because if you can kill something and not feel any remorse, or have any nightmares, yeah, you'll be able to do it clinically.
Most soldiers, they actually fear killing and actually do feel fear on the battlefield, but you always have that elite group that feels absolutely no fear at all, this group will literally take the battle to the enemy, run into the line of fire, and kill over and over again with no remorse. This is not something everyone can do, it's a very specific and special talent that requires psychopathy. Like I said, not all psychopaths are violent, but a psychopath can simply handle killing better because if you don't feel guilt, well you can kill and smile while you are doing it.
The majority of psychopaths arent in the killing business, but if the killing business were the only business in town, or were the most profitable, this would change overnight.
Psychopaths have a right to life and happiness just like everyone else. Just because Reiser may have been a productive psychopath, it does not mean he had the right to kill his wife, even if she was a psychopath, she was human.
Exactly, some people do view life as a money value. How much $ is your life worth?
Honestly, I don't think you can calculate the worth of a life JUST in money. It's too simplistic. People are important for quality of life, and this should weigh in.
This is why we have life sentences. Why should anyone be released from prison for murder? And if they are released, they should be watched. It's murder, it's not robbery, it's not drug dealing, it's the worst crime a human can commit, if you arent tough in this crime, why have any laws at all?
Yes you can say that a lot of people would murder, but some people would NEVER murder because they have empathy. It's that simple, if this story is true, Mr. Reiser had no empathy at all, and this was his wife.
Why do you believe it's normal to murder? Most people would never even consider murdering their wife, and of people who think about it, most people quickly feel guilty for even thinking about it. If a person planned it and went through with it, it's safe to say they werent feeling empathy or guilt.
Tell me why do you defend a person who could just as easily do this to you?
We don't know that 5% doesnt kill again, they might just get better at it. There is little evidence that a psychopath can change, sure they might not get caught next time, but still, they will think like a murderer.
If the worst thing a person has done was murder or rape someone, they should have it hang over their head, especially if they feel no guilt, I mean why are we suddenly soft on crime? and murder? I mean really what crime could be worse than that?
We call these people psychopaths/sociopaths, and you know some of them, in fact some may be posting on this forum, you may even have family members and best friends who are psycho. Take a psychology course, educate yourself before you post on a subject as complicated as emotion. We don't all have the same emotions, not everyone feels guilt, or love, or hate, as each person has their own set of emotions, their own emotional profile.
Psychopaths in specific, they don't feel guilt or empathy for anyone.
All psychopaths, lack the capability to feel guilt, thats why they commit murders in the first place. If you murder, and it's someone like your wife, chances are you are psycho, because you are right, the average person would never be able to kill their wife because they'd feel guilt, remorse, empathy, psychopaths don't feel this.
This is a good idea. Instead of asking him to code, simply force him to code, it's prison, and if he is a murderer, he owes society. So do the other prisoners, and if they are allowed to code, it would be a lot cheaper than paying people in India to do it. The money generated by their code could be used to pay for upgrades to their prison.
Exactly, you cannot give aid to governments, you can only give to individuals, and you have to be precise about it. You give to individuals who want to start businesses.
How much money will actually make it to the Sudan?
I don't see how having a concert or two is in any way related to solving real world problems. What? You going to party your way to a better environment?
This is a perfect way to sell tickets and raise profits. It will be like Live8.
You are correct, the idea is not perfect, but it's a better idea than the data retention idea which I think does absolutely nothing. I don't know how you can stop kiddie porn unless you can stop it from being created and uploaded. Once it gets on the internet, it's impossible to stop it. The way files work, people can hide porn in other files, it's literally going to be impossible and only make the problem worse.
I'm not even worried about freenet, I'm worried about the fact that when you chase 1s and 0s, it's really chasing 1s and 0s. It's really an issue on all sorts of levels, the free spech level only being one of them, but it's also not going to do a good job protecting children, and it does not even prevent distribution because it does not stop the uploaders, or the people in other countries (which is where I'm guessing most kiddie porn comes from anyway), from setting up websites and uploading that junk all over the net.
What we need, is one definate global law on this issue, that applies to ALL distributors, all uploaders, around the world, and it should apply to pictures of the private or sexual sort, and apply to people of all ages. If you upload a picture of someone, and they did not give you any sort of permission to do it, you should be accountable. If it's a child, you should be accountable plus you should do prison time.
Basically, the only way this can end is if we tell people they cannot go around taking random pictures of people, and invading privacy, but we can't really say that so instead we are doing what? I don't know.
Really, when people talk about child porn, why is it we never get some statistics to see exactly where the child porn comes from, how much of it is online, etc? I know it's a problem, but I don't think it's so much of a problem that you need to surveillance the enire internet.
I think the only way to actually arrest the distributors you have to know where the pictures came from. If you just arrest random people, it does nothing and accomplishes nothing.
I don't think a kiddie porn witch hunt will accomplish anything, it will just be a witch hunt, and if it's going to be conducted in such a way that it does nothing to prevent or stop kids from being harmed then it's pointless.
The goal is to protect kids right? We can all agree on that. There are proven ways to end kiddie porn, the first is to stop any individual from making any sorta money from it, the second is to go after anyone who uploads it. If you just go after the files themselves, you'll be arresting millions of people, and by the way computers are designed, it won't even be the right people.
So what is the goal? If the goal is simply to arrest millions of people, then yeah chase the movement of the pictures, but if you want to protect the children you have to stop the creation and distribution where it starts. Someone is abusing these children using the camera, they are using the camera as a weapon, it does not really make sense to outlaw the camera itself, or to outlaw the bullets, but it does make sense to require a person to have a license to operate a camera.
If you needed to have a license, then if you operated a camera without a license you'd be the suspicious one, the government could target all who operate without a license.
Otherwise I don't know, I'm not a legal scholar, I just know that if the goal is to protect children, from being abused by photographers, you have to target the photographers. Once the pictures, or anything else gets online it's too late at that point. It's impossible to control information once it gets online, we can't control music, we can't control files, or anything, and it would be silly to try to do that. I suppose if people are trading gigs of kiddie porn yes you should target them, or at least put them on some sorta watch list, otherwise I don't see how this would work.
Just because most people die of old age today, it does not mean most people will die of old age 100 years from now, or that humans will even exist in these numbers 100 years from now.
It's impossible to believe that with our current lifestyle, that we will all live to be 100, the world will become more and more dangerous, and life will become shorter and more brutal until we actually work to improve quality of life. Anti-Aging research improves quality of life so I support it.
This is not a wise move to debate this now. I'm not sure why they choose to display this before an election. The NSA should be handling stuff like this, and these types of security measures can be handled in the hardware level, hell if you want, put the data in the CPU of the PC itself, or whatever. The point is, the internet is huge, it has almost unlimited traffic, so the only time something like this would make sense is for datamining.
I'm not an expect on datamining, but why don't they just come out and say they want to conduct datamining for surveillance purposes? When the child porn stuff is brought into it, it's like, "we want you to let us monitor the internet, to protect the children" instead of "we want you to let us monitor the internet, to protect your national security". People have seen this before with Google, the internet learns very quickly, I'd say the people online have an on average high IQ.
The reason it's BS is because it does not really do anything to catch the uploaders. I mean, the best way to catch the uploaders is to work with Microsoft, and make it so every camera has indentity information. It's really simply, if Microsoft can make it difficult to download mp3s on their OS, and do this gunuine advantage, you are telling me they can't rig the camera phones and digital cameras to the exact computer that the first pictures were uploaded to?
We all know, that these cameras should be used responsibly, and not to abuse kids, so how exactly do we stop the abuse of kids if we record everything on the internet but nothing about the camera?
I'm pretty sure, that every picture on the internet has some sorta tracking information, it should have tracking information, if it does not then I'd be surprised. If each camera puts personal information about the computer you are on, when you upload pictures to windows, whenever you distribute it, it should know exactly which computer it originated from, the time and date it was taken, maybe even name and email type information along with computer ID, this way you can simply track any picture back to the founder. This would do more to solve the kiddie porn problem than anything else. It should also be illegal to distribute it, so no websites or trading it back and forth. If you get the ISP's involved, what for? Data retention, would likely contain everything you did, every site you visited etc, and have nothing to do with child porn. Sure it might help if thousands of people are going to a child porn website, or are in some sorta criminal distribution ring, otherwise I don't see how it will do any good. If it's a newsgroup, it should be obvious who uploaded it regardless of if they tried to do it annonymously or not.
Does the law really work in such a way where you can be supeonaed based on what link you clicked on? Shouldn't you arrest the person who created the link?
If you arrest people simply for clicking links, and not the people who actually put the links on the internet, what stops a person from putting up links which say one thing but take you to somewhere else, then you get arrested? I mean a spam bot could arrange it so that everyone gets spammed with bogus links and then what?
The way the internet is designed, you don't really know what you'll see at a link until after you see it. The only person who really knows, is the one who actually created the link in the first place.
You may be correct, it likely is not just for kiddie porn, because if people can be arrested for just clicking on a link or downloading a file, it becomes impossible at that point to use the internet safely without falling for some sorta trap or clicking on some sorta link that is illegal to click on, hell a script could make you click on it, a virus could download stuff onto your computer and use it for storage, so you see this is basically ridiculous. This does not mean people will not try to make it the law, as laws don't have to make technical sense whatsoever, but due to how the internet is designed and the culture of the net, if a law like this passes everyone would be guilty, have you ever downloaded an mp3? Of course. Ever downloaded a movie without paying for it?
You see, it's impossible to not be guilty when the crime is downloading. If the crime is uploading, then yes you should be guilty if distributing it is illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes you can teach morality, to strengthen conscience, however conscience is something based on natural intuition that people are born with, or not. Some of us are born with the ability to be good at having a conscience just as some of us are born to be good at math, or born to be good at reading or not.
So you can teach someone without a conscience to behave, and to develop a rational conscience, it's just far more difficult to teach a person who lacks the innate ability. It's like anything else really, some people have the conscience talent and some don't. Child soldiers, you are acting as if every child would equally be a good child soldier. Most child soldiers, are damaged
and feel a lot of remorse, just later. Children generally can be trained into killing machines not because they lack remorse, or conscience, but because their conscience is not complex enough or firm enough to avoid being molded by religion.
Adults on the other hand, they know right from wrong based on experience, because they know what is rational and or irrational and it matches up with their conscience. Ethics are rational, but you don't really understand this as a kid even if you have the natural ability, you wont really know what you are doing at 5. So I agree, that we must spend more time training children in ethics, and do a better job teaching reasoning ability.
Censorship does not work, as censoring words, or violence, it does not really influence conscience at all, however it can keep your kid from being violent if they lack a conscience. At the same time when you make something forbidden you risk making it "cool" to be violent too. This is actually true, it's a big debate now in the psychology world as to how to teach conscience, and the tests have been done on prisoners with moderate success. Prisoners can be taught right from wrong, but their concept of right and wrong is narrow and based on the influence it has on themself, not the influence it has on anyone else, as they are the center of their world and you are the guest, you have to explain how it's in their best interest to act ethical and stop being a criminal. Most people CAN learn to not be a criminal because they fear going to jail. Most criminals want to stay out of jail and enjoy their lives,
problem is, it's so simple to just take whatever you want simply because you can, and it's so simple to just do whatever you want simply because you can, that you have to actually explain to people why it's RATIONAL to limit their freedoms. Easier said than done.
It's not dogma, it's based on statistics. Study the prison population, study the criminals, about 20% of the prison population are psychopaths, about 20% of prisoners give or take, don't feel any guilt at all for what they have done, and just don't give a fuck about you, me, or themselves.
You can call it dogma, but you know that these sorts of people exist and are common, you've met people with the "I don't give a fuck" attitude before havent you? Hell you may even have that attitude yourself. The difference is, when a psychopath has that attitude, they actually mean it. All violent acts, are violent expressions of violent thoughts, so it makes more sense to study psychology than numbers, as the brain does control the actions of the body, not statistics.
If you don't want to call these people psychopath murderers, fine, call them evil, or better, evil psychopaths. Don't get me wrong, not all psychopaths are evil, it takes a certain mix. Either way it's important to study criminology and the criminal mind, this is what he police and FBI do when they want to solve a crime or prevent crime. So if the FBI is involved, they already know if this guy is psycho or not, and they know about his wife too, and if he is a suspect it might be for a lot of very specific reasons.
First you have to ask, is this guy capable of killing his wife? Okay sure, depending on the situation anyone is capable of killing anyone, so was he suicidal? was he depressed during the informal interview? Just look at Scott Peterson, he was interviewed on national TV and because he displayed all the signs of a psychopath in his response, this is one of the main reasons why the public turned against him. He displayed no remorse at all to the general public, and it scared people, and when he did display emotion, it did not even seem real, it looked forced.
If you want peer reviewed studys, use Google, if you want to study criminology, go study it, everyone knows about the criminal mind, if you want to study how people can commit these crimes in the first place, study psychology, as it takes a certain personality type to actually pull off THIS sorta crime, not manslaughter, not homicide, this was murder, planned out, not the sorta crime that normal people spend all night and day thinking about. Normal people don't even hit their wife.
Let's hope, that it's not as bad as it seems or that some information is missing, because if it isnt, he could get convicted, and yes the jury will take his psychological profile into account when it's brought up in the case.
Show me that the world is filled with empathy, compassion, and remorse.
Show me the level of global guilt, because if you were an alien species looking at this world, you would think that psychopath was the natural state of human existance.
To presume all who commit crimes are suffering from mental illness, or are in some way less human, is a common error. We wish to distance ourselves from those we consider evil, by claiming that we could never do such a thing. But make no mistake; this is denial, plain and simple.
I never said psychopaths were LESS human, in fact they may actually be MORE human.
Criminality is a mental illness, or not being a criminal is a mental illness, pick.
I never said all psychopaths are criminals. I never said all psychopaths are violent. Read precisely what I said, psychopaths do not feel guilt, remorse, or empathy, and there are a lot of people who don't feel guilt, remorse or empathy, enuogh that I'd say it's normal. I'd guess around 20% of the population, this is a guess and it could be wrong, but it's enough people that there are people in your family, friends, people at work (like your boss), and ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends who were/are psycho. It's as common as any other trait, like fat people, everyone knows a few, or like short people, or tall people, etc.
That's not to say that there aren't criminal psychopaths in the world; rather it is to admit that average, mentally healthy people, under the right conditions, can do things we as a society consider monsterous. For every psycho killing people at random, there are a dozen "average" people killing for revenge, for profit, for ideology, or for any number of other reasons.
The average people almost always commit suicide immediately after they commit violent acts. The average person can kill sure, but not willingly, and not out of greed. If you kill for money, that's a sign of lack of empathy right there. If you kill out of passion, in an angry outburst, or in a suicidal rage, or in a fight, or in self defense, these are normal situations.
Like I said before though, psychopaths are more normal and MORE human than everyone else. This is why you say that murder and other acts are normal, it's normal because empathy, compassion and remorse are abnormal in human nature, very much like altruism is abnormal, or self love is abnormal. Let's face it, it's never rational to commit these sorts of act's when a person who isnt a psychopath commits these acts, however a psychopath can more easily rationalize the taking of a life because there is less value placed on life, partially because if you can kill something and not feel any remorse, or have any nightmares, yeah, you'll be able to do it clinically.
Most soldiers, they actually fear killing and actually do feel fear on the battlefield, but you always have that elite group that feels absolutely no fear at all, this group will literally take the battle to the enemy, run into the line of fire, and kill over and over again with no remorse. This is not something everyone can do, it's a very specific and special talent that requires psychopathy. Like I said, not all psychopaths are violent, but a psychopath can simply handle killing better because if you don't feel guilt, well you can kill and smile while you are doing it.
The majority of psychopaths arent in the killing business, but if the killing business were the only business in town, or were the most profitable, this would change overnight.
This is the sorta case which should get national attention, I mean this is the exact kinda case that would be on the news for months of years.
Reiser was no ordinary internet user, and his wife did not seem ordinary either. I'm surprised to be reading it on Slashdot and not seeing it on CNN.
Psychopaths have a right to life and happiness just like everyone else. Just because Reiser may have been a productive psychopath, it does not mean he had the right to kill his wife, even if she was a psychopath, she was human.
Would people here be trying to say that murder should be legalized then?
You make a very good point, people seem to have seperate laws for celebrity criminals, we saw it with OJ.
Exactly, some people do view life as a money value. How much $ is your life worth?
Honestly, I don't think you can calculate the worth of a life JUST in money. It's too simplistic. People are important for quality of life, and this should weigh in.
This is why we have life sentences. Why should anyone be released from prison for murder? And if they are released, they should be watched. It's murder, it's not robbery, it's not drug dealing, it's the worst crime a human can commit, if you arent tough in this crime, why have any laws at all?
Yes you can say that a lot of people would murder, but some people would NEVER murder because they have empathy. It's that simple, if this story is true, Mr. Reiser had no empathy at all, and this was his wife.
Why do you believe it's normal to murder? Most people would never even consider murdering their wife, and of people who think about it, most people quickly feel guilty for even thinking about it. If a person planned it and went through with it, it's safe to say they werent feeling empathy or guilt.
Tell me why do you defend a person who could just as easily do this to you?
Where do you get your statistics and how exactly can we know exactly how many people are murdered? Do you work in a funeral home or something?
How could anyone think it's rational to make murder legal? do you have any idea what would happen if murder were legalized even for a day?
We don't know that 5% doesnt kill again, they might just get better at it. There is little evidence that a psychopath can change, sure they might not get caught next time, but still, they will think like a murderer.
If the worst thing a person has done was murder or rape someone, they should have it hang over their head, especially if they feel no guilt, I mean why are we suddenly soft on crime? and murder? I mean really what crime could be worse than that?
If you are a murderer you SHOULD be in a database or registry for the rest of your life. We are talking murder here, it's a permanent crime.
You can't.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath
We call these people psychopaths/sociopaths, and you know some of them, in fact some may be posting on this forum, you may even have family members and best friends who are psycho. Take a psychology course, educate yourself before you post on a subject as complicated as emotion. We don't all have the same emotions, not everyone feels guilt, or love, or hate, as each person has their own set of emotions, their own emotional profile.
Psychopaths in specific, they don't feel guilt or empathy for anyone.
All psychopaths, lack the capability to feel guilt, thats why they commit murders in the first place. If you murder, and it's someone like your wife, chances are you are psycho, because you are right, the average person would never be able to kill their wife because they'd feel guilt, remorse, empathy, psychopaths don't feel this.
This is a good idea. Instead of asking him to code, simply force him to code, it's prison, and if he is a murderer, he owes society. So do the other prisoners, and if they are allowed to code, it would be a lot cheaper than paying people in India to do it. The money generated by their code could be used to pay for upgrades to their prison.
Exactly, you cannot give aid to governments, you can only give to individuals, and you have to be precise about it. You give to individuals who want to start businesses.
How much money will actually make it to the Sudan?
I don't see how having a concert or two is in any way related to solving real world problems. What? You going to party your way to a better environment?
This is a perfect way to sell tickets and raise profits. It will be like Live8.
You are correct, the idea is not perfect, but it's a better idea than the data retention idea which I think does absolutely nothing. I don't know how you can stop kiddie porn unless you can stop it from being created and uploaded. Once it gets on the internet, it's impossible to stop it. The way files work, people can hide porn in other files, it's literally going to be impossible and only make the problem worse.
I'm not even worried about freenet, I'm worried about the fact that when you chase 1s and 0s, it's really chasing 1s and 0s. It's really an issue on all sorts of levels, the free spech level only being one of them, but it's also not going to do a good job protecting children, and it does not even prevent distribution because it does not stop the uploaders, or the people in other countries (which is where I'm guessing most kiddie porn comes from anyway), from setting up websites and uploading that junk all over the net.
What we need, is one definate global law on this issue, that applies to ALL distributors, all uploaders, around the world, and it should apply to pictures of the private or sexual sort, and apply to people of all ages. If you upload a picture of someone, and they did not give you any sort of permission to do it, you should be accountable. If it's a child, you should be accountable plus you should do prison time.
Basically, the only way this can end is if we tell people they cannot go around taking random pictures of people, and invading privacy, but we can't really say that so instead we are doing what? I don't know.
Really, when people talk about child porn, why is it we never get some statistics to see exactly where the child porn comes from, how much of it is online, etc? I know it's a problem, but I don't think it's so much of a problem that you need to surveillance the enire internet.
I think the only way to actually arrest the distributors you have to know where the pictures came from. If you just arrest random people, it does nothing and accomplishes nothing.
I don't think a kiddie porn witch hunt will accomplish anything, it will just be a witch hunt, and if it's going to be conducted in such a way that it does nothing to prevent or stop kids from being harmed then it's pointless.
The goal is to protect kids right? We can all agree on that. There are proven ways to end kiddie porn, the first is to stop any individual from making any sorta money from it, the second is to go after anyone who uploads it. If you just go after the files themselves, you'll be arresting millions of people, and by the way computers are designed, it won't even be the right people.
So what is the goal? If the goal is simply to arrest millions of people, then yeah chase the movement of the pictures, but if you want to protect the children you have to stop the creation and distribution where it starts. Someone is abusing these children using the camera, they are using the camera as a weapon, it does not really make sense to outlaw the camera itself, or to outlaw the bullets, but it does make sense to require a person to have a license to operate a camera.
If you needed to have a license, then if you operated a camera without a license you'd be the suspicious one, the government could target all who operate without a license.
Otherwise I don't know, I'm not a legal scholar, I just know that if the goal is to protect children, from being abused by photographers, you have to target the photographers. Once the pictures, or anything else gets online it's too late at that point. It's impossible to control information once it gets online, we can't control music, we can't control files, or anything, and it would be silly to try to do that. I suppose if people are trading gigs of kiddie porn yes you should target them, or at least put them on some sorta watch list, otherwise I don't see how this would work.
I had not even considered the free speech issue. That issue is even bigger than the child porn issue.
How does this all influence free speech?
Just because most people die of old age today, it does not mean most people will die of old age 100 years from now, or that humans will even exist in these numbers 100 years from now.
It's impossible to believe that with our current lifestyle, that we will all live to be 100, the world will become more and more dangerous, and life will become shorter and more brutal until we actually work to improve quality of life. Anti-Aging research improves quality of life so I support it.
This is not a wise move to debate this now. I'm not sure why they choose to display this before an election. The NSA should be handling stuff like this, and these types of security measures can be handled in the hardware level, hell if you want, put the data in the CPU of the PC itself, or whatever. The point is, the internet is huge, it has almost unlimited traffic, so the only time something like this would make sense is for datamining.
I'm not an expect on datamining, but why don't they just come out and say they want to conduct datamining for surveillance purposes? When the child porn stuff is brought into it, it's like, "we want you to let us monitor the internet, to protect the children" instead of "we want you to let us monitor the internet, to protect your national security". People have seen this before with Google, the internet learns very quickly, I'd say the people online have an on average high IQ.
The reason it's BS is because it does not really do anything to catch the uploaders. I mean, the best way to catch the uploaders is to work with Microsoft, and make it so every camera has indentity information. It's really simply, if Microsoft can make it difficult to download mp3s on their OS, and do this gunuine advantage, you are telling me they can't rig the camera phones and digital cameras to the exact computer that the first pictures were uploaded to?
We all know, that these cameras should be used responsibly, and not to abuse kids, so how exactly do we stop the abuse of kids if we record everything on the internet but nothing about the camera?
I'm pretty sure, that every picture on the internet has some sorta tracking information, it should have tracking information, if it does not then I'd be surprised. If each camera puts personal information about the computer you are on, when you upload pictures to windows, whenever you distribute it, it should know exactly which computer it originated from, the time and date it was taken, maybe even name and email type information along with computer ID, this way you can simply track any picture back to the founder. This would do more to solve the kiddie porn problem than anything else. It should also be illegal to distribute it, so no websites or trading it back and forth. If you get the ISP's involved, what for? Data retention, would likely contain everything you did, every site you visited etc, and have nothing to do with child porn. Sure it might help if thousands of people are going to a child porn website, or are in some sorta criminal distribution ring, otherwise I don't see how it will do any good. If it's a newsgroup, it should be obvious who uploaded it regardless of if they tried to do it annonymously or not.
Does the law really work in such a way where you can be supeonaed based on what link you clicked on? Shouldn't you arrest the person who created the link?
If you arrest people simply for clicking links, and not the people who actually put the links on the internet, what stops a person from putting up links which say one thing but take you to somewhere else, then you get arrested? I mean a spam bot could arrange it so that everyone gets spammed with bogus links and then what?
The way the internet is designed, you don't really know what you'll see at a link until after you see it. The only person who really knows, is the one who actually created the link in the first place.
You may be correct, it likely is not just for kiddie porn, because if people can be arrested for just clicking on a link or downloading a file, it becomes impossible at that point to use the internet safely without falling for some sorta trap or clicking on some sorta link that is illegal to click on, hell a script could make you click on it, a virus could download stuff onto your computer and use it for storage, so you see this is basically ridiculous. This does not mean people will not try to make it the law, as laws don't have to make technical sense whatsoever, but due to how the internet is designed and the culture of the net, if a law like this passes everyone would be guilty, have you ever downloaded an mp3? Of course. Ever downloaded a movie without paying for it?
You see, it's impossible to not be guilty when the crime is downloading. If the crime is uploading, then yes you should be guilty if distributing it is illegal.