4 ms·

Right. And your free society would actually celebrate people that produce and distribute things like child pornography, hell, you'd actually sell your own chil

by aditya 18y ago

Right. And your free society would actually celebrate people that produce and distribute things like child pornography, hell, you'd actually sell your own children into the business, right? I'm sorry but anarchy and freedom from coercion such as taxes are good things that we'd be interested in talking about as hackers, but you're coming out in support of child porn to support your claim of freedom. There is no doublethink here, child porn is wrong, that is objective reality.

sho 18y ago
Wow, you really demolished that straw man you set up there. I'm not advocating child porn, nor anarchy, nor any other of your bizarre projections. Get a grip. "child porn is wrong, that is objective reality." Your proclamations of what is right or wrong have no place in "objective reality", my friend. Objective reality simply is. "you're coming out in support of child porn to support your claim of freedom" Well I didn't really mean to "come out in support of" it but why not, sure, for the sake of argument. And I presume you're "coming out" in favour of a world in which you can be thrown in jail at any time for the existence, on a computer under your control, of a copy of a photo you didn't take?
- aditya 18y ago
  grin. sorry for sounding annoyed, that wasn't the idea (so much for being objective :) Since you didn't mean to come out in support of child porn (which is what it sounded like you were doing, by proclaiming the government shouldn't be able to go after our bits) - I think it's been determined in this thread that having mistakenly had a copy of a photo on your computer doesn't make you a user, or prosecutable by law. My point was that being associated with Child Pornography (user, distributor, creator) knowing that you're doing it willfully is wrong and should be prosecutable. Now I'm not sure whether we disagree.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  I would like to say that I would encourage you to come and do my job before you try to make claims like these :) > And I presume you're "coming out" in favour of a world in which you can be thrown in jail at any time for the existence, on a computer under your control, of a copy of a photo you didn't take? This is precisely my job: to figure out if the suspect downloaded the image deliberately (which is a crime) or not (which isnt). As you might have gathered from my earlier figures 20% of the computers I look at are innocent (and I prove them to be)..... :) Your "freedom" is for the computer users and doesnt consider anyone else.
  - trapper 18y ago
    For arguments sake, if sho had 10gb of <7yo children in sexual acts distributed amongst photos and videos on his computer, would he be guilty in your opinion? Sho - I would like to hear from you too.
    - ErrantX 18y ago
      Well yes I would report that as a positive: i.e. that I had found material. Depending on the grading of the images the CPS would then decide what to prosecute him with (i.e. all level 1's would probably get you a talking too and advice on places to get help if required, a decent number of level 5's would prompt prosecution). I'd also look at how he organised them. For example if it was a few 100 MB's of borderline images (even if we know they are illegal) and they were spread randomly in his porn collection then I would possibly consider it a negative. If then I found google searches for "download lolita" etc. and evidence of hanging out on 12chan et al then I might revise that view. Each case varies considerably :) as I am sure you can imagine. Currently possession of the material in large quantities is a crime. What legal reason could there be for holding that quantity on disk? (bearing in mind the checks and paperwork we have to go through to hold the material per the requirments of our contracts). That amount of data (10GB is a lot) would prompt me to look very closely at the sources and other activity as it would suggest distribution too (indeed I would be surprised if there were no distribution at that scale). 1 image wont get you jail time. 100 would depend on the context & the grading. 1000+ is, I hope, fairly obvious :)
      - trapper 18y ago
        The only thing I was thinking was if I were going to do something clearly illegal, and had technical ability, surely I wouldn't store my stash in plain site. E.g. hack someones machine, store the data on their computer. How do you prove 'intent'? I have known a few shady types throughout life, and none of them were stupid enough to store their stolen goods at their home, regardless of how poor their educational abilities :)
        18y ago

by aditya 18y ago

sho 18y ago

Wow, you really demolished that straw man you set up there. I'm not advocating child porn, nor anarchy, nor any other of your bizarre projections. Get a grip. "child porn is wrong, that is objective reality." Your proclamations of what is right or wrong have no place in "objective reality", my friend. Objective reality simply is. "you're coming out in support of child porn to support your claim of freedom" Well I didn't really mean to "come out in support of" it but why not, sure, for the sake of argument. And I presume you're "coming out" in favour of a world in which you can be thrown in jail at any time for the existence, on a computer under your control, of a copy of a photo you didn't take?

aditya 18y ago
grin. sorry for sounding annoyed, that wasn't the idea (so much for being objective :) Since you didn't mean to come out in support of child porn (which is what it sounded like you were doing, by proclaiming the government shouldn't be able to go after our bits) - I think it's been determined in this thread that having mistakenly had a copy of a photo on your computer doesn't make you a user, or prosecutable by law. My point was that being associated with Child Pornography (user, distributor, creator) knowing that you're doing it willfully is wrong and should be prosecutable. Now I'm not sure whether we disagree.
ErrantX 18y ago
I would like to say that I would encourage you to come and do my job before you try to make claims like these :) > And I presume you're "coming out" in favour of a world in which you can be thrown in jail at any time for the existence, on a computer under your control, of a copy of a photo you didn't take? This is precisely my job: to figure out if the suspect downloaded the image deliberately (which is a crime) or not (which isnt). As you might have gathered from my earlier figures 20% of the computers I look at are innocent (and I prove them to be)..... :) Your "freedom" is for the computer users and doesnt consider anyone else.
- trapper 18y ago
  For arguments sake, if sho had 10gb of <7yo children in sexual acts distributed amongst photos and videos on his computer, would he be guilty in your opinion? Sho - I would like to hear from you too.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    Well yes I would report that as a positive: i.e. that I had found material. Depending on the grading of the images the CPS would then decide what to prosecute him with (i.e. all level 1's would probably get you a talking too and advice on places to get help if required, a decent number of level 5's would prompt prosecution). I'd also look at how he organised them. For example if it was a few 100 MB's of borderline images (even if we know they are illegal) and they were spread randomly in his porn collection then I would possibly consider it a negative. If then I found google searches for "download lolita" etc. and evidence of hanging out on 12chan et al then I might revise that view. Each case varies considerably :) as I am sure you can imagine. Currently possession of the material in large quantities is a crime. What legal reason could there be for holding that quantity on disk? (bearing in mind the checks and paperwork we have to go through to hold the material per the requirments of our contracts). That amount of data (10GB is a lot) would prompt me to look very closely at the sources and other activity as it would suggest distribution too (indeed I would be surprised if there were no distribution at that scale). 1 image wont get you jail time. 100 would depend on the context & the grading. 1000+ is, I hope, fairly obvious :)
    - trapper 18y ago
      The only thing I was thinking was if I were going to do something clearly illegal, and had technical ability, surely I wouldn't store my stash in plain site. E.g. hack someones machine, store the data on their computer. How do you prove 'intent'? I have known a few shady types throughout life, and none of them were stupid enough to store their stolen goods at their home, regardless of how poor their educational abilities :)
      - 18y ago