FRA has apparently stated that they had already been using wiretaps. I think some posts in the thread mention that as well. The swedish environmental party (miljöpartiet) has requested that an investigation should be do to see if FRA has broken the law. Source here (in swedish) http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/riksdagsfraga_fras_laglosa_avlyssning_maste_utredas
Because they will go after appearance and not after actual age (fictional characters have no age). As such, any character that looks underage will be underage.
There's a study on the subject of the impact of porn on rape statistics and i think it mentioned that the japanese rape rates have been going down at about the same time porn availability went UP in japan. In fact, it also mentioned that the age distribution changed so that the victims were generally older now than they were before. That is, the study seemed to suggest that the more porn was available, the less frequent rape becomes and the older the average age of the victim becomes.
This is going to change soon as the current proposed law replaces the current definition. It is no longer just age that defines it, but also appearance. That is, any sexual/pornographic photography of a woman that is legally younger than 18 is child porn. Any sexual/pornographic photography of a woman that is OLDER than 18 but LOOKS YOUNGER is also child porn. They want to have their cake but eat it to.
We have this law here in sweden that can land you in prison if you purchase sex. Selling is ok, though. UN ordered an examination of the law, but the govt came in and essentially said "Well it's ok as long as you don't question the intent behind the law or the law itself". So basically they've said that no matter what the study shows, the law will remain in place, even if the law turns out to do more harm than good.
In reality, IP rights and censorship are connected.
Basically. There are two wars going on.
Fighting file sharing and fighting "that stuff nobody wants to touch". Atleast in sweden it's fairly obvious that there is a correlation. Many times the techniques used against for example child porn is used against file sharing. We've had so far two direct uses of child porn as a weapon against The Pirate Bay. The first use was to use the child porn filter (censorship) to block the entire site. Once The Pirate Bay was removed from the filter, some kind of threat was done and after that TPB did some cleanup thing or something and then there was nothing more heard about that.
Notice that the UK has just created a law that makes it illegal to possess violent porn? This means in reality that a filter will appear soon enough. If the UK already has a child porn filter, then that filter will be expanded to violent porn. Next step is to expand the definition of violent porn further, or expand the definition of child porn, and we pretty much have censorship. For example in sweden they have expanded child porn laws to encompass drawings. This means that any sites that contain drawings that could be judged child pornographic could be blocked by the child porn filter. This filter isn't actually law (yet) either, but the list cannot be shared publically. This means that you can't actually check out what's on those sites (if you could the list would be useless) but at the same time they've just essentially said "these sites are illegal, don't go there. No you can't know what's there. No i told you there's illegal stuff there" so you can't actually KNOW for sure if the site that's being blocked actually CONTAINS any child porn. In short: They can block whatever site they want and there's no way to know if there's a legitimate reason.
Bonzai tree growing sites for example. (based on a true story)
Basically. The same weapons that are used against "questionable material" will be used against file sharing, and vice versa. And supporters of strong laws against one of these, will support strong laws against the other, as they, in a way, both represent different aspects of censorship and control and they are related for that reason. There was an attack in a swedish newspaper last year on the pirate bay and they actually used the child porn weapon against them by claiming that "they hosted a pedofile site". What they were doing was essentially protecting a site that was under attack by a certain online individual who goes vigilante against sites that are liberal towards pedofiles. They allowed that site to be hosted on their servers. (no afaik the site had no illegal content) but the article made a point of pointing out the fact that they were hosting it. As if that, in itself, was a problem.
Atleast in sweden it is not difficult to discern a pattern behind the various politicians and the laws they support. Those who are vocal against child porn are enemies of porn in general, and i am sure they will embrace the UK's decision to adapt this law. I am sure they will even suggest we should copy it here in sweden. After all, we already have a law against child pornographic drawings (prison sentence w00t!). They're just going to wait a couple of years and then make a blatant copy of this piece of shit law, and then it will get accepted and we'll get even more sex criminals. It's not like we're not among the worst countries in europe when it comes to the amount of sex crimes reported...
There's been some recent debate in sweden about another change in the child porn law that would not only set a definite minimum age of 18 for all participation in porn (right now the definition is basically: If she looks old enough, she is old enough) it would also allow for porn with models OVER the age of eighteen to be "child porn" if the model LOOKS like she is younger. Thus it has nothing to do with protecting children whatsoever. But what is interesting is a statement made by one of the supporters after the law. The supporter was asked about what her opinion is when it concerns porn that could be "borderline" illegal. Her reply, whose exact phrasing i've forgotten, essentially was "People should stay away from any porn that is borderline". Basically: Stay away from porn with women younger than 25.
Thomas Bodström, former minister of law, who is involved in recent debates on swedish child porn laws is, not surprisingly, also involved in the fight against piracy. The connection isn't entirely obvious until you realize that the swedish national "child porn filter" has been used to block The Pirate Bay. Bodström was also the minister who ordered the raid on piratebay some years ago. The fight against porn (and child porn) goes hand in hand with the fight on piracy. As the wider they can make the definition of child porn, the more websites they can shut out with the filter. Feminazis also back the child porn laws, as the wider the definition is, the more legal porn is suddenly illegal. These women love their Andrea Dworkin.
The same thing that happened to "rape" has happened to "terrorism".
Incidentally, i find it very interesting that in a country like Sweden where there is practically no threat of terrorism, the government is redefining the crime of rape.
Before 2005 (or 06, 07 i'm not sure exactly which of those years it came into place), we had a law that basically said that sex with a minor is "abuse of minor". Now a later law rewrote that so sex with a minor is no longer "abuse of minor" but plain "rape". That is, even if the sex is consentual, there is no legal difference. There's a dillution of terms. Sure it's abuse, but is it rape? No. Rape is forcefully having sex with someone. Abuse of minor is abuse of minor and not rape. They've now changed the definition of rape to be "forcefully having sex with someone, OR having sex with someone who's younger than ".
From what can be discerned in current debates, the next step is widening the definition further by defaulting that sex without proven consent is rape too. The idea is to put part of the burden of proof on the "criminal" by forcing him to prove that the "victim" wanted to have sex and did not protest. The excuse is that too many rapists go free. (If the girl gets plastered, then gets fucked, and then regrets it, was it rape?
They've already widened the definition of child porn to encompass drawings and something that's being debated is the possibility of writing in another exception in the child porn law that would 1: Set a definite 18 year old limit on porn (currently the definition is "if she looks sexually mature, the porn is legal") 2: Set a secondary limit defined by her looks that goes beyond point 1. That is, "if she does not look sexually mature the porn is illegal even if the girl is proven to be over 18".
The widened definition of child porn is, not entirely surprisingly, supported by the man who is also one of sweden's most vocal opponents of filesharing (Thomas Bodström). The same person is also a supporter of the swedish child porn filter which has previously been used to block The Pirate Bay (and some site about bonsai trees). Coincidence?
My personal belief is that the US fight on terrorism is inspiring those with a desire for more power into finding scapegoats. In order to create more scapegoats that can be used in order to expand oppressive laws, they widen the definitions of existing crimes. After all, if drawings are child porn, then surely the amount of child porn has suddenly seen an increase and then the supporters can come out and say "Well look even if we're fighting THIS HARD against child porn it's not doing anything good so we must fight even HARDER". And as mentioned before, this also works wonders as they can use the same weapons they use against child porn against file sharing.
Although having said that, the EU does at least give a tool to fight these various kinds of censorship, in that the European Convention on Human Rights at last gives us the right to freedom of expression, among other rights
I'm not really sure on this as it was quite a while since i read up on free-speech within the EU. However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.
In 2005 was there were calls for installation of a national porn filter that would be used to prevent access to sites with "violent porn". This was after some girl got killed by some maniac who was "inspired" by "violent porn". The family of the girl was like "BAN ALL PORN! BAN ALL PORN!" or something retarded like that. I haven't kept myself up to date on the current situation in the UK, but last thing i heard they were discussing the possibility of banning even POSSESSION of violent porn.
In sweden we already have a so-called child-porn filter which doesn't seem to lower our booming rape rates (i think it was among the highest in all of EU) or save any children in general. In fact, it doesn't even seem to actually block child porn sites (bonsai tree sites?). Hell. We can't even realistically determine what's being blocked by the filter in the first place, seeing as the fucking list is kept SECRET.
So no. The EU needs to clean up it's own fucking backyard before complaining about some shit china does.
This is actually wrong. All they will need is to plant evidence (child porn) and do a search. Then they will just need to leak this information to the public (they won't even need a conviction). They'll get a free lynching.
Because child porn is the worst crime in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
FRA has apparently stated that they had already been using wiretaps. I think some posts in the thread mention that as well. The swedish environmental party (miljöpartiet) has requested that an investigation should be do to see if FRA has broken the law. Source here (in swedish)
http://www.piratpartiet.se/nyheter/riksdagsfraga_fras_laglosa_avlyssning_maste_utredas
What about retro-phrenology?
"Otherwise you start to get chilling effects." Otherwise you get Afghanistan.
Because they will go after appearance and not after actual age (fictional characters have no age). As such, any character that looks underage will be underage.
There's a study on the subject of the impact of porn on rape statistics and i think it mentioned that the japanese rape rates have been going down at about the same time porn availability went UP in japan. In fact, it also mentioned that the age distribution changed so that the victims were generally older now than they were before. That is, the study seemed to suggest that the more porn was available, the less frequent rape becomes and the older the average age of the victim becomes.
I find the bible morally repulsive. So yes i agree. We should ban it.
This is going to change soon as the current proposed law replaces the current definition. It is no longer just age that defines it, but also appearance. That is, any sexual/pornographic photography of a woman that is legally younger than 18 is child porn. Any sexual/pornographic photography of a woman that is OLDER than 18 but LOOKS YOUNGER is also child porn. They want to have their cake but eat it to.
I have that problem. I don't know if i can uninstall any of them or if that will break the entire thing...
We have this law here in sweden that can land you in prison if you purchase sex. Selling is ok, though. UN ordered an examination of the law, but the govt came in and essentially said "Well it's ok as long as you don't question the intent behind the law or the law itself". So basically they've said that no matter what the study shows, the law will remain in place, even if the law turns out to do more harm than good.
>>but you'd be dead anyway inside there!
See? It's so powerful you don't even NEED to hit anyone with it.
In reality, IP rights and censorship are connected.
Basically. There are two wars going on.
Fighting file sharing and fighting "that stuff nobody wants to touch". Atleast in sweden it's fairly obvious that there is a correlation. Many times the techniques used against for example child porn is used against file sharing. We've had so far two direct uses of child porn as a weapon against The Pirate Bay. The first use was to use the child porn filter (censorship) to block the entire site. Once The Pirate Bay was removed from the filter, some kind of threat was done and after that TPB did some cleanup thing or something and then there was nothing more heard about that.
Notice that the UK has just created a law that makes it illegal to possess violent porn? This means in reality that a filter will appear soon enough. If the UK already has a child porn filter, then that filter will be expanded to violent porn. Next step is to expand the definition of violent porn further, or expand the definition of child porn, and we pretty much have censorship. For example in sweden they have expanded child porn laws to encompass drawings. This means that any sites that contain drawings that could be judged child pornographic could be blocked by the child porn filter. This filter isn't actually law (yet) either, but the list cannot be shared publically. This means that you can't actually check out what's on those sites (if you could the list would be useless) but at the same time they've just essentially said "these sites are illegal, don't go there. No you can't know what's there. No i told you there's illegal stuff there" so you can't actually KNOW for sure if the site that's being blocked actually CONTAINS any child porn. In short: They can block whatever site they want and there's no way to know if there's a legitimate reason.
Bonzai tree growing sites for example. (based on a true story)
Basically. The same weapons that are used against "questionable material" will be used against file sharing, and vice versa. And supporters of strong laws against one of these, will support strong laws against the other, as they, in a way, both represent different aspects of censorship and control and they are related for that reason. There was an attack in a swedish newspaper last year on the pirate bay and they actually used the child porn weapon against them by claiming that "they hosted a pedofile site". What they were doing was essentially protecting a site that was under attack by a certain online individual who goes vigilante against sites that are liberal towards pedofiles. They allowed that site to be hosted on their servers. (no afaik the site had no illegal content) but the article made a point of pointing out the fact that they were hosting it. As if that, in itself, was a problem.
Atleast in sweden it is not difficult to discern a pattern behind the various politicians and the laws they support. Those who are vocal against child porn are enemies of porn in general, and i am sure they will embrace the UK's decision to adapt this law. I am sure they will even suggest we should copy it here in sweden. After all, we already have a law against child pornographic drawings (prison sentence w00t!). They're just going to wait a couple of years and then make a blatant copy of this piece of shit law, and then it will get accepted and we'll get even more sex criminals. It's not like we're not among the worst countries in europe when it comes to the amount of sex crimes reported...
There's been some recent debate in sweden about another change in the child porn law that would not only set a definite minimum age of 18 for all participation in porn (right now the definition is basically: If she looks old enough, she is old enough) it would also allow for porn with models OVER the age of eighteen to be "child porn" if the model LOOKS like she is younger. Thus it has nothing to do with protecting children whatsoever. But what is interesting is a statement made by one of the supporters after the law. The supporter was asked about what her opinion is when it concerns porn that could be "borderline" illegal. Her reply, whose exact phrasing i've forgotten, essentially was "People should stay away from any porn that is borderline". Basically: Stay away from porn with women younger than 25.
Thomas Bodström, former minister of law, who is involved in recent debates on swedish child porn laws is, not surprisingly, also involved in the fight against piracy. The connection isn't entirely obvious until you realize that the swedish national "child porn filter" has been used to block The Pirate Bay. Bodström was also the minister who ordered the raid on piratebay some years ago. The fight against porn (and child porn) goes hand in hand with the fight on piracy. As the wider they can make the definition of child porn, the more websites they can shut out with the filter. Feminazis also back the child porn laws, as the wider the definition is, the more legal porn is suddenly illegal. These women love their Andrea Dworkin.
...The more i want the death note. Damn you, Ryuuk! You gave it to the wrong freaking guy!
Because the army wants to use what they discover to improve their ability to kill people. Everyone else just wants to use it for immoral reasons.
Tails only come in cat tail form, bundled with extra large cat ears. And we only sell to girls, sorry.
I said it is abuse and NOT rape. This is what i mean with dillution.
It's like calling a bank robbery terrorism. They're both crimes, but one clearly holds more "oomph" than the other.
The same thing that happened to "rape" has happened to "terrorism".
Incidentally, i find it very interesting that in a country like Sweden where there is practically no threat of terrorism, the government is redefining the crime of rape.
Before 2005 (or 06, 07 i'm not sure exactly which of those years it came into place), we had a law that basically said that sex with a minor is "abuse of minor". Now a later law rewrote that so sex with a minor is no longer "abuse of minor" but plain "rape". That is, even if the sex is consentual, there is no legal difference. There's a dillution of terms. Sure it's abuse, but is it rape? No. Rape is forcefully having sex with someone. Abuse of minor is abuse of minor and not rape. They've now changed the definition of rape to be "forcefully having sex with someone, OR having sex with someone who's younger than ".
From what can be discerned in current debates, the next step is widening the definition further by defaulting that sex without proven consent is rape too. The idea is to put part of the burden of proof on the "criminal" by forcing him to prove that the "victim" wanted to have sex and did not protest. The excuse is that too many rapists go free. (If the girl gets plastered, then gets fucked, and then regrets it, was it rape?
They've already widened the definition of child porn to encompass drawings and something that's being debated is the possibility of writing in another exception in the child porn law that would
1: Set a definite 18 year old limit on porn (currently the definition is "if she looks sexually mature, the porn is legal")
2: Set a secondary limit defined by her looks that goes beyond point 1. That is, "if she does not look sexually mature the porn is illegal even if the girl is proven to be over 18".
The widened definition of child porn is, not entirely surprisingly, supported by the man who is also one of sweden's most vocal opponents of filesharing (Thomas Bodström). The same person is also a supporter of the swedish child porn filter which has previously been used to block The Pirate Bay (and some site about bonsai trees). Coincidence?
My personal belief is that the US fight on terrorism is inspiring those with a desire for more power into finding scapegoats. In order to create more scapegoats that can be used in order to expand oppressive laws, they widen the definitions of existing crimes. After all, if drawings are child porn, then surely the amount of child porn has suddenly seen an increase and then the supporters can come out and say "Well look even if we're fighting THIS HARD against child porn it's not doing anything good so we must fight even HARDER". And as mentioned before, this also works wonders as they can use the same weapons they use against child porn against file sharing.
Oh shit! NOW i know why there are so many wars in africa. It's all the tits corrupting their minds!
Although having said that, the EU does at least give a tool to fight these various kinds of censorship, in that the European Convention on Human Rights at last gives us the right to freedom of expression, among other rights I'm not really sure on this as it was quite a while since i read up on free-speech within the EU. However i'm sure i've read somewhere that in the European Convention on Human Rights there is a "right for children not to be sexualized in fiction". That is, child pornographic drawings are illegal. As i said i'm not 100% sure on this, but some members (sweden for example) has already criminalized possession of child pornographic drawings.
In 2005 was there were calls for installation of a national porn filter that would be used to prevent access to sites with "violent porn". This was after some girl got killed by some maniac who was "inspired" by "violent porn". The family of the girl was like "BAN ALL PORN! BAN ALL PORN!" or something retarded like that. I haven't kept myself up to date on the current situation in the UK, but last thing i heard they were discussing the possibility of banning even POSSESSION of violent porn.
In sweden we already have a so-called child-porn filter which doesn't seem to lower our booming rape rates (i think it was among the highest in all of EU) or save any children in general. In fact, it doesn't even seem to actually block child porn sites (bonsai tree sites?). Hell. We can't even realistically determine what's being blocked by the filter in the first place, seeing as the fucking list is kept SECRET.
So no. The EU needs to clean up it's own fucking backyard before complaining about some shit china does.
I'm personally more worried about my tinfoil clad popcorn storage facility.
Except here you can get thrown into prison for illegal drawings (loli)
There are loads of things that are good for the bottom line but NOT good for the people.
This is actually wrong. All they will need is to plant evidence (child porn) and do a search. Then they will just need to leak this information to the public (they won't even need a conviction). They'll get a free lynching. Because child porn is the worst crime in the world.
Isn't this the type of crime that should be called software piracy?