it's not going to hold up in any reasonable court of law that it is actually encrypted.
It doesn't have to. Welcome to the RIP Act.
Good luck finding the key for my 'secret partition'
Sadly you've just admitted you have one. You claim it is no longer in a retrievable state, and that you've forgotten the password. We think you're just trying to hide your cache of illegal material. Hand over the key or go to prison for 2 years.
People go to Uni and do subjects like Biology, Economics, Film & Theatre Studies and Computer Science. Then they go out and get jobs as plumbers, accountants, teachers, middle managers and software engineers.
My closest friends: - BSc Physics : programmer - BSc Accounting : runs his own IT business - BSc Economics : SOx expert consultant - Pissed around so much, no degree : works for Microsoft - BA Modern Languages : runs her own business in healthcare - BSc Chemical Engineering : banker
Maybe you went to a college that is meant to prepare you for a career, but universities do not and should not have that role.
Java doesn't treat OOP as a silver bullet, it just acknowledges that most software bugs come from memory management issues* and cuts them straight out.
* I made that up. But it's certainly a lot. And you can still get them in Java. And Java clearly isn't the best language for many purposes. But it certainly isn't remotely close to a "train wreck", and if you work in C++ and think Java's OO focus is wrong then you certainly don't work in C++ professionally. But hey, I don't know you so it's easy to slag your engineering skills.
On the other hand, the letter I wrote has resulted in Amazon, HMV and other retailers removing that image from their website.
Pretty significant impact for a couple of minutes of typing.
Meanwhile, I haven't viewed the image. Forgive me for not seeking out child pornography. I made the conscious decision not to; lucky my decision to write a letter has had decisive results.
As I mentioned in a reply above, the justification in the UK was to provide a means to prosecute people that film the abuse of children (and yeah, we're talking hard hot cocks up 6 year old arses, this isn't a fucking game) and use rotoscoping or other techniques to turn it into a cartoon.
As the published video was a cartoon it couldn't be prosecuted under decency laws and there was no proof that abuse took place. Under the new laws it can be prosecuted, whether abuse can be proven or not.
And if you happen to hand-draw some cartoons from scratch then you're fucked because the law is badly written and zealously prosecuted, but that's a separate issue entirely.
Although the application of the law is fucking obnoxious, the intent behind it is grounded in preventing very real abuse.
In the UK similar laws against cartoon child porn exist. The rationale is that pornographers were using rotoscoping type techniques to turn real video into cartoons to avoid the anti-pornography laws.
Since writing a law to ban lifelike indecent cartoons is difficult they opted to make all cartoon sex involving children illegal, and probably a lot of other cartoons too.
I guess nobody's written in to complain about the simpson's movie, rugrats, etc yet.
It's another example of a stupidly written law being used beyond its scope.
Similarly I can view discussion on child pornography, and even written descriptions of sex with children without breaking the law.
I can also view indecent images of children, legally.
I can not create indecent images of children without breaking the law. The current interpretation of the law is that rendering an image in RAM to display on a screen creates that image. People have been successfully prosecuted on this exact basis for creating indecent images of children.
Technically that isn't thought crime. It's the creation of indecent images, which the law deems to encourage the future abuse of children even if no abuse occurred in the creation of the image. By targeting the consumers of abusive imagary your theoretically reduce the demand and thus supply drops, leading to a reduction in occurrences of abuse.
You can point out all the flaws in those arguments and I'll probably agree. It's a fucking stupid law in many regards, but it's not thought crime.
You're allowed to think about abusing children all you like.
I don't think the law in the US is actually all that different. In fact, in the US you can be prosecuted for creating images of people shitting themselves. Apparently it contravenes obscenity laws if there's any sexual motive involved, even if they're fully dressed.
Sorry, you're saying that I should intentionally seek out something that has been designated child pornography? And that would make me a man?
I'd rather get back into nappies than be exposed to your concept of manhood.
Sending a letter stating that there categorically is an issue is not a waste of time, and is exactly what I have done.
What I haven't done is stated my view on whether the image contravenes various UK laws or not - not least because my views have no legal standing and viewing the image may be illegal (due to an admittedly fucked up law that describes the creation of an image in computer memory or on the hard disk as creating new and original images).
I haven't needed to view the image to be able to express my concerns, and request the organisations involved to review their procedures and decisions, which is as much as I can hope for.
I could also seek a change in the law, but for that I would write to my MP, not to an unelected non-governmental organisation.
You're from the US. Post on an internet forum that you'd like to kill the President of the US.
Get ready for your visit from the treasury department.
How free are you? Is complying with the law a restriction on freedom or a social contract? If the law states that disseminating child pornography is illegal due to the very real impacts on the children involved then is it so wrong that the law also includes sanctions for doing so?
Am I free? Not as free as I'd like. Probably more free than most people on the planet.
Oddly, no. The IWF was set up by the main ISPs of the time to head off explicit Government censorship.
If you're suggesting the ISPs should permit display of known and reported child pornography (which is primarily what the IWF identify) then you have a severe minority position and one you'll find difficult to defend to the general public.
Sadly no, I do not have a legitimate interest to look at child pornography. Although I don't know whether this image qualifies as such the IWF have designated it to be and they have police guidance on this matter.
Even if I eventually win in court I'll have lost pretty much everything up to that.
Instead I've written to the IWF and told them to re-evaluate their decision. That's an appropriate and measured response, and one that does not expose me to significant personal risk.
Agreed, such censorship should be obvious and explained, so that a challenge can be made if required and so that people understand the actions taking place.
The only time I've noticed being censored was a specific response stating the page had illegal material on it and stating the law being broken. I'm comfortable with that.
Whether the law is correct is a separate matter entirely, but one that can be addressed on its own merits and not in the context of internet censorship.
Entered into the IWF website, in the description field of the link above:
I have not visited this link myself, as it allegedly contains an image that the IWF has already flagged as indecent and censored (through UK ISPs). Someone else posted this link on an online discussion forum where the original image was being debated. On that same forum it was highlighted that this image is also available on Google's image cache, on the Amazon.com website and on many other music and shopping sites across the world. Can you please treat all instances of this image identically. If it is truly indecent (I don't know, because I haven't viewed it) then ban it everywhere. If it has been banned by mistake (or stupidity) then obviously unban it from the source currently banned (i.e. Wikipedia).
The IWF is vulnerable to public opinion, and this instance is likely to cause poor publicity. Please act promptly and with absolute certainty as to the correct legal interpretation of this image.
If you do decide it isn't indecent after all, do let me know - I'm curious to know what all the fuss is about. It's clearly either an edge case, or something's gone wrong with your internal controls, and as a user of the Internet in the UK I'm keen to find out that it's the former.
Thanks for the link, but I wont go there:) I will however report that link to the IWF and see if I can get Amazon banned - that at least will force major media to take notice, which is far more helpful to getting sensible laws in place.
I'm happy to decry and support attempts to remove the wrongful censorship. I haven't stated that the image is or should be designated child pornography, merely highlighted that it may be deemed as such under the law.
The law is excessive and frankly stupid, but that's typical of many UK laws in the past few years. I'm personally more interested in overturning the anti-terror laws first as they limit civil liberties infinitely more than the child pornography ones.
The Internet Watch Foundation, to whom the major (maybe all) ISPs in the UK subscribe.
While they may sound evil, it's an industry body that works with ISPs and the police and by existing and tackling child pornography through industry best practices it negates the need for Government interference and censorship of the net.
I'm willing to put up with the odd image being wrongly classified (especially if that classification can be reversed) if it avoids Government mandated censorship. Although we're probably already suffering that anyway:(
However, the law doesn't outlaw porn, it outlaws indecent images of children.
There are a few hundred years of case material in the UK concerning the interpretation of "indecent" and it keeps changing.
The IWF probably use an overly broad definition just to be safe. I'm sure the interest in this one image will cause them to re-evaluate it, and hopefully a national debate will ensue that ensures appropriate controls only are used.
The IWF has done a lot of good work in the past. To continue to work it must remain relevant and prudent in its approach; they've always known this, and I'm hoping they will continue to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not going to hold up in any reasonable court of law that it is actually encrypted.
It doesn't have to. Welcome to the RIP Act.
Good luck finding the key for my 'secret partition'
Sadly you've just admitted you have one. You claim it is no longer in a retrievable state, and that you've forgotten the password. We think you're just trying to hide your cache of illegal material. Hand over the key or go to prison for 2 years.
(Welcome to the RIP Act)
Actually, if you create classes full of static methods then yes, you are a bad engineer.
I think you're confusing College with University.
People go to Uni and do subjects like Biology, Economics, Film & Theatre Studies and Computer Science. Then they go out and get jobs as plumbers, accountants, teachers, middle managers and software engineers.
My closest friends:
- BSc Physics : programmer
- BSc Accounting : runs his own IT business
- BSc Economics : SOx expert consultant
- Pissed around so much, no degree : works for Microsoft
- BA Modern Languages : runs her own business in healthcare
- BSc Chemical Engineering : banker
Maybe you went to a college that is meant to prepare you for a career, but universities do not and should not have that role.
The practice of computer science and the practice of development are significantly different.
Although there is definitely room (and indeed necessity) for creativity in engineering.
I didn't go to class and they gave me an honours degree. A good one too.
Then again, I went to a good university and learned a lot playing on their unix systems.
A good university teaches you how to learn, how to solve problems and how to write about them. All very useful skills in the workplace.
Any specific career related knowledge gained is and should be purely coincidental. It's a fucking university, not a tech college.
Java doesn't treat OOP as a silver bullet, it just acknowledges that most software bugs come from memory management issues* and cuts them straight out.
* I made that up. But it's certainly a lot. And you can still get them in Java. And Java clearly isn't the best language for many purposes. But it certainly isn't remotely close to a "train wreck", and if you work in C++ and think Java's OO focus is wrong then you certainly don't work in C++ professionally. But hey, I don't know you so it's easy to slag your engineering skills.
On the other hand, the letter I wrote has resulted in Amazon, HMV and other retailers removing that image from their website.
Pretty significant impact for a couple of minutes of typing.
Meanwhile, I haven't viewed the image. Forgive me for not seeking out child pornography. I made the conscious decision not to; lucky my decision to write a letter has had decisive results.
Maybe it wasn't as meaningless as you thought.
You are arguing that throught crimes are ok because you'll catch some real criminals with it.
That's not my argument, although it is the current implementation and interpretation of the law.
As I mentioned in a reply above, the justification in the UK was to provide a means to prosecute people that film the abuse of children (and yeah, we're talking hard hot cocks up 6 year old arses, this isn't a fucking game) and use rotoscoping or other techniques to turn it into a cartoon.
As the published video was a cartoon it couldn't be prosecuted under decency laws and there was no proof that abuse took place. Under the new laws it can be prosecuted, whether abuse can be proven or not.
And if you happen to hand-draw some cartoons from scratch then you're fucked because the law is badly written and zealously prosecuted, but that's a separate issue entirely.
Although the application of the law is fucking obnoxious, the intent behind it is grounded in preventing very real abuse.
In the UK similar laws against cartoon child porn exist. The rationale is that pornographers were using rotoscoping type techniques to turn real video into cartoons to avoid the anti-pornography laws.
Since writing a law to ban lifelike indecent cartoons is difficult they opted to make all cartoon sex involving children illegal, and probably a lot of other cartoons too.
I guess nobody's written in to complain about the simpson's movie, rugrats, etc yet.
It's another example of a stupidly written law being used beyond its scope.
Similarly I can view discussion on child pornography, and even written descriptions of sex with children without breaking the law.
I can also view indecent images of children, legally.
I can not create indecent images of children without breaking the law. The current interpretation of the law is that rendering an image in RAM to display on a screen creates that image. People have been successfully prosecuted on this exact basis for creating indecent images of children.
Technically that isn't thought crime. It's the creation of indecent images, which the law deems to encourage the future abuse of children even if no abuse occurred in the creation of the image. By targeting the consumers of abusive imagary your theoretically reduce the demand and thus supply drops, leading to a reduction in occurrences of abuse.
You can point out all the flaws in those arguments and I'll probably agree. It's a fucking stupid law in many regards, but it's not thought crime.
You're allowed to think about abusing children all you like.
I don't think the law in the US is actually all that different. In fact, in the US you can be prosecuted for creating images of people shitting themselves. Apparently it contravenes obscenity laws if there's any sexual motive involved, even if they're fully dressed.
It's a wonderful world.
Sorry, you're saying that I should intentionally seek out something that has been designated child pornography? And that would make me a man?
I'd rather get back into nappies than be exposed to your concept of manhood.
Sending a letter stating that there categorically is an issue is not a waste of time, and is exactly what I have done.
What I haven't done is stated my view on whether the image contravenes various UK laws or not - not least because my views have no legal standing and viewing the image may be illegal (due to an admittedly fucked up law that describes the creation of an image in computer memory or on the hard disk as creating new and original images).
I haven't needed to view the image to be able to express my concerns, and request the organisations involved to review their procedures and decisions, which is as much as I can hope for.
I could also seek a change in the law, but for that I would write to my MP, not to an unelected non-governmental organisation.
Now, where can I find some adult sized nappies..
You're from the US. Post on an internet forum that you'd like to kill the President of the US.
Get ready for your visit from the treasury department.
How free are you? Is complying with the law a restriction on freedom or a social contract? If the law states that disseminating child pornography is illegal due to the very real impacts on the children involved then is it so wrong that the law also includes sanctions for doing so?
Am I free? Not as free as I'd like. Probably more free than most people on the planet.
Sorry, you'd recommend precisely what instead?
Oddly, no. The IWF was set up by the main ISPs of the time to head off explicit Government censorship.
If you're suggesting the ISPs should permit display of known and reported child pornography (which is primarily what the IWF identify) then you have a severe minority position and one you'll find difficult to defend to the general public.
Sadly no, I do not have a legitimate interest to look at child pornography. Although I don't know whether this image qualifies as such the IWF have designated it to be and they have police guidance on this matter.
Even if I eventually win in court I'll have lost pretty much everything up to that.
Instead I've written to the IWF and told them to re-evaluate their decision. That's an appropriate and measured response, and one that does not expose me to significant personal risk.
Agreed, such censorship should be obvious and explained, so that a challenge can be made if required and so that people understand the actions taking place.
The only time I've noticed being censored was a specific response stating the page had illegal material on it and stating the law being broken. I'm comfortable with that.
Whether the law is correct is a separate matter entirely, but one that can be addressed on its own merits and not in the context of internet censorship.
Entered into the IWF website, in the description field of the link above:
I have not visited this link myself, as it allegedly contains an image that the IWF has already flagged as indecent and censored (through UK ISPs). Someone else posted this link on an online discussion forum where the original image was being debated. On that same forum it was highlighted that this image is also available on Google's image cache, on the Amazon.com website and on many other music and shopping sites across the world.
Can you please treat all instances of this image identically. If it is truly indecent (I don't know, because I haven't viewed it) then ban it everywhere. If it has been banned by mistake (or stupidity) then obviously unban it from the source currently banned (i.e. Wikipedia).
The IWF is vulnerable to public opinion, and this instance is likely to cause poor publicity. Please act promptly and with absolute certainty as to the correct legal interpretation of this image.
If you do decide it isn't indecent after all, do let me know - I'm curious to know what all the fuss is about. It's clearly either an edge case, or something's gone wrong with your internal controls, and as a user of the Internet in the UK I'm keen to find out that it's the former.
Thanks for the link, but I wont go there :) I will however report that link to the IWF and see if I can get Amazon banned - that at least will force major media to take notice, which is far more helpful to getting sensible laws in place.
I'm happy to decry and support attempts to remove the wrongful censorship. I haven't stated that the image is or should be designated child pornography, merely highlighted that it may be deemed as such under the law.
The law is excessive and frankly stupid, but that's typical of many UK laws in the past few years. I'm personally more interested in overturning the anti-terror laws first as they limit civil liberties infinitely more than the child pornography ones.
It's not illegal, and the grandfather was trolling.
The pendulum is, I think, too far towards 'all nudity is porn' but that statement is clearly untrue even today.
I doubt you'll find a UK ISP that doesn't use the IWF list to filter web access. It's an exceedingly powerful body.
Complaining is good though, there's no reason the IWF should be unaccountable for the decisions it makes.
The Internet Watch Foundation, to whom the major (maybe all) ISPs in the UK subscribe.
While they may sound evil, it's an industry body that works with ISPs and the police and by existing and tackling child pornography through industry best practices it negates the need for Government interference and censorship of the net.
I'm willing to put up with the odd image being wrongly classified (especially if that classification can be reversed) if it avoids Government mandated censorship. Although we're probably already suffering that anyway :(
However, the law doesn't outlaw porn, it outlaws indecent images of children.
There are a few hundred years of case material in the UK concerning the interpretation of "indecent" and it keeps changing.
The IWF probably use an overly broad definition just to be safe. I'm sure the interest in this one image will cause them to re-evaluate it, and hopefully a national debate will ensue that ensures appropriate controls only are used.
The IWF has done a lot of good work in the past. To continue to work it must remain relevant and prudent in its approach; they've always known this, and I'm hoping they will continue to do so.