6 ms·

> shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it? False dichotomy. Regardless on how you stand on d

by VMG 14y ago

> shouldn't we focus on finding those making porn, actively abusing kids, rather than those distributing it? False dichotomy. Regardless on how you stand on distributing child pornography, a person actively distributing it from their connection and a person allowing others to route CP via their connection are logically equivalent in my opinion.

e12e 14y ago
I didn't mean to set them up as mutually exclusive -- but surely what we want to stop is the abuse of kids? While I don't have a problem with banning child porn (which would be what? Younger than 21 in the US, younger than 16 in Norway and younger than 12 in the Netherlands? Who would decide? Does it include all pictures of naked kids? Artists renditions ?). The real offence is the making of porn that involves kids. Also; I think it is really weird that possessing (or distributing) any media file can carry a minimum 6 year sentence. That's more than manslaughter. If for no other reason that it pretty much renders everyone vulnerable to blackmail by very easily planting evidence.
wwwtyro 14y ago
> a person actively distributing it from their connection and a person allowing others to route CP via their connection are logically equivalent False equivalence. Someone can simultaneously support anonymous communication without supporting CP (philosophically, if not practically). They're not specifically allowing distribution of CP, they're allowing distribution of all anonymous communication.
- baak 14y ago
  That makes it totally okay then. Whew, I was worried they were specifically allowing Child Pornography. Thankfully, the distribution of pictures of naked kids is just a byproduct of their freedom.
  - Tipzntrix 14y ago
    The distribution of illegal drugs to greater distances is just a byproduct of public transit or automobile sales.
Hannan 14y ago
Do you feel the same way about someone operating an open wifi access point? To me the active distributor is quite a bit worse than someone operating an open wifi connection or a Tor exit node.
mistercow 14y ago
I like how you say "logically equivalent" as if that magically makes it a rational position.
pi18n 14y ago
Then it is fine to charge the ISPs with distribution as well. Oops, now you broke the internet.
- VMG 14y ago
  ISPs keep track of who does what on their connection and will tell law enforcement if somebody does something dodgy. If they didn't, it would break the internet.
  - anonymous 14y ago
    You can't be serious. There's no civilized country where ISPs are even allowed to look at their users traffic. Observing traffic for suspicious behavior would also be completely over their head from a technical perspective. The only instance where ISPs are taking action by themselves is when network abuse occurs (as in DoS attacks).
    - svachalek 14y ago
      In the US, the ISPs responsibilities and actions in this regard are considered a state secret. http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-confirms-it-has-secret-interpretation-patriot-act-spy-powers http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-confir...
    - jrabone 14y ago
      Try again. That is exactly what is happening in the UK with deep packet inspection to "traffic shape" torrents, Phorm to inject targetted adverts, various child-porn filtering systems which route traffic to second-level firewalls based on suspicious IP addresses. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys... http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4841-bt-given-14-days-to-comply-with-filtering-access-to-newzbin2.html http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4841-bt-given-14-days-to-... http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/isps-defend-new-porn-filtering-measures-42134 http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/isps-defend-new-porn-fi...
TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
Might I remind everyone that trading in snuff films (where someone is murdered and taped) is legal. The act of murder is illegal. Why is this different for child molestation films? I think we can put both murder and child abuse as horrible crimes.
- DanBC 14y ago
  "Trading in snuff films" is not legal in all regions. But, even ignoring that, there's a difference. Murder is rare. Films of actual murder are even rarer. Brutal snuff type films can be faked. Child sexual abuse is not rare. Films and photographs of child sexual abuse are not that rare. Films and photographs of children being abused are hard to fake. People who are caught with images of child sexual abuse tend to have large collections - tens of thousands of images. People need images to trade with other collectors. Researchers think that the collecting aspect drives creation of images of child sexual abuse.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    This topic needs merged out. What is a picture of child exploitation? Perhaps, a picture of a baby naked? Or how about a kid doing somewhat lewd acts fully clothed? Or how about pictures by others of those child beauty pageants? Who actually describes lewd? Or is it in the eyes of the beholder of the picture for those gray areas? Next, "child porn" pictures are a possess-only crime, no mens rea required. So, how do we tell if a picture is a legal 18 yr old, instead an evil completely morally corrupt (but legal to fuck) 17 year old?
    - darkarmani 14y ago
      Even better, sending CP to every single politician should automatically make them all felons. Possession is what is illegal, so I'm just waiting for an internet virus that spreads CP onto millions of computers.
      - DanBC 14y ago

by VMG 14y ago

e12e 14y ago

I didn't mean to set them up as mutually exclusive -- but surely what we want to stop is the abuse of kids? While I don't have a problem with banning child porn (which would be what? Younger than 21 in the US, younger than 16 in Norway and younger than 12 in the Netherlands? Who would decide? Does it include all pictures of naked kids? Artists renditions ?). The real offence is the making of porn that involves kids. Also; I think it is really weird that possessing (or distributing) any media file can carry a minimum 6 year sentence. That's more than manslaughter. If for no other reason that it pretty much renders everyone vulnerable to blackmail by very easily planting evidence.

wwwtyro 14y ago

> a person actively distributing it from their connection and a person allowing others to route CP via their connection are logically equivalent False equivalence. Someone can simultaneously support anonymous communication without supporting CP (philosophically, if not practically). They're not specifically allowing distribution of CP, they're allowing distribution of all anonymous communication.

baak 14y ago
That makes it totally okay then. Whew, I was worried they were specifically allowing Child Pornography. Thankfully, the distribution of pictures of naked kids is just a byproduct of their freedom.
- Tipzntrix 14y ago
  The distribution of illegal drugs to greater distances is just a byproduct of public transit or automobile sales.

Hannan 14y ago

Do you feel the same way about someone operating an open wifi access point? To me the active distributor is quite a bit worse than someone operating an open wifi connection or a Tor exit node.

mistercow 14y ago

I like how you say "logically equivalent" as if that magically makes it a rational position.

pi18n 14y ago

Then it is fine to charge the ISPs with distribution as well. Oops, now you broke the internet.

VMG 14y ago
ISPs keep track of who does what on their connection and will tell law enforcement if somebody does something dodgy. If they didn't, it would break the internet.
- anonymous 14y ago
  You can't be serious. There's no civilized country where ISPs are even allowed to look at their users traffic. Observing traffic for suspicious behavior would also be completely over their head from a technical perspective. The only instance where ISPs are taking action by themselves is when network abuse occurs (as in DoS attacks).
  - svachalek 14y ago
    In the US, the ISPs responsibilities and actions in this regard are considered a state secret. http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-confirms-it-has-secret-interpretation-patriot-act-spy-powers http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-confir...
  - jrabone 14y ago
    Try again. That is exactly what is happening in the UK with deep packet inspection to "traffic shape" torrents, Phorm to inject targetted adverts, various child-porn filtering systems which route traffic to second-level firewalls based on suspicious IP addresses. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys... http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4841-bt-given-14-days-to-comply-with-filtering-access-to-newzbin2.html http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4841-bt-given-14-days-to-... http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/isps-defend-new-porn-filtering-measures-42134 http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/isps-defend-new-porn-fi...

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago

Might I remind everyone that trading in snuff films (where someone is murdered and taped) is legal. The act of murder is illegal. Why is this different for child molestation films? I think we can put both murder and child abuse as horrible crimes.

DanBC 14y ago
"Trading in snuff films" is not legal in all regions. But, even ignoring that, there's a difference. Murder is rare. Films of actual murder are even rarer. Brutal snuff type films can be faked. Child sexual abuse is not rare. Films and photographs of child sexual abuse are not that rare. Films and photographs of children being abused are hard to fake. People who are caught with images of child sexual abuse tend to have large collections - tens of thousands of images. People need images to trade with other collectors. Researchers think that the collecting aspect drives creation of images of child sexual abuse.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  This topic needs merged out. What is a picture of child exploitation? Perhaps, a picture of a baby naked? Or how about a kid doing somewhat lewd acts fully clothed? Or how about pictures by others of those child beauty pageants? Who actually describes lewd? Or is it in the eyes of the beholder of the picture for those gray areas? Next, "child porn" pictures are a possess-only crime, no mens rea required. So, how do we tell if a picture is a legal 18 yr old, instead an evil completely morally corrupt (but legal to fuck) 17 year old?
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    Even better, sending CP to every single politician should automatically make them all felons. Possession is what is illegal, so I'm just waiting for an internet virus that spreads CP onto millions of computers.
    - DanBC 14y ago