3 ms·

So if someone does nasty things, but getting access to evidence for these nasty things is impossible without breaking a law, how do you suggest that one should

by GuiA 13y ago

So if someone does nasty things, but getting access to evidence for these nasty things is impossible without breaking a law, how do you suggest that one should go about proving that the aforementioned nasty things were committed?

jamesaguilar 13y ago
Not sure. You might have to take one for the team like with other acts of civil disobedience. That said, in this case, were nasty things uncovered? I can't find anything about that. Also, mixing investigative journalism with theft and use of other people's credit card numbers is probably not the best way to maintain an appearance of innocence.
andrewfong 13y ago
Pedophiles do nasty things on the Internet. Uncovering pedophiles on the Internet is impossible without mass surveillance of the Internet. How do you suggest that one should go about proving that someone is a pedophile? In both the case of pedophiles and state actors who are breaking the law, the answer is the same. Wait for them to slip up. It's hard to keep something secret forever.
- moloch 13y ago
  > "Uncovering pedophiles on the Internet is impossible without mass surveillance of the Internet" Didn't realize the TV show "To Catch a Predator" did mass surveillance of the internet, NBC is taking investigative journalism to an extreme.
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    That's sort of the point. When someone justifies an action because it's "impossible" to stop bad thing X without doing morally questionable thing Y, be skeptical.
- GuiA 13y ago
  I'm not on top of my criminal law, but it seems to me that the nasty, illegal things pedophiles do, they do in real life and not the internet, no?
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    We can replace pedophile with "person who consumes and distributes kiddie porn" if that helps the analogy.
    - GuiA 13y ago
      If you replace those words, then your analogy falls apart. http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/ http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-mus...

by GuiA 13y ago

jamesaguilar 13y ago

Not sure. You might have to take one for the team like with other acts of civil disobedience. That said, in this case, were nasty things uncovered? I can't find anything about that. Also, mixing investigative journalism with theft and use of other people's credit card numbers is probably not the best way to maintain an appearance of innocence.

andrewfong 13y ago

Pedophiles do nasty things on the Internet. Uncovering pedophiles on the Internet is impossible without mass surveillance of the Internet. How do you suggest that one should go about proving that someone is a pedophile? In both the case of pedophiles and state actors who are breaking the law, the answer is the same. Wait for them to slip up. It's hard to keep something secret forever.

moloch 13y ago
> "Uncovering pedophiles on the Internet is impossible without mass surveillance of the Internet" Didn't realize the TV show "To Catch a Predator" did mass surveillance of the internet, NBC is taking investigative journalism to an extreme.
- andrewfong 13y ago
  That's sort of the point. When someone justifies an action because it's "impossible" to stop bad thing X without doing morally questionable thing Y, be skeptical.
GuiA 13y ago
I'm not on top of my criminal law, but it seems to me that the nasty, illegal things pedophiles do, they do in real life and not the internet, no?
- andrewfong 13y ago
  We can replace pedophile with "person who consumes and distributes kiddie porn" if that helps the analogy.
  - GuiA 13y ago
    If you replace those words, then your analogy falls apart. http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/ http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-mus...