Right to be forgotten...
... sorry, who are you? Bing? Nope, never heard of you...
See, it works!!!
6391 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... sorry, who are you? Bing? Nope, never heard of you...
See, it works!!!
My mother was in hospital recently and visitors were supposed not to be allowed into wards during meal times.
So, due to various circumstances, I arrive late and think "bugger, they won't let me in", but, at that moment, there's an old guy having a bit of difficulty getting his wheelchair out of the lift.
"Want a hand, mate?"
"Tell you what, I'll just push you into the ward, how about that?"
Nurse sees person pushing patient in wheelchair, lets us in...
(Ok, so it's not High Security, but still :-) )
> Australia has a couple of humdingers where people have been prosecuted for possessing child porn cartoons, which is the very definition of a victimless crime.
Even better, at least a couple of them were for possession of pictures of Bart and Lisa Simpson! See this article from El Reg in 2010
Oh, BTW, whilst using google to look up that link, the first result that came up is an Ad from Google "Warning - Child abuse imagery is illegal"! Probably got myself added to another watch list...
> God, I wish The Register had some kind of ignore list so I didn't have to come across you again - it's getting kind of tedious.
Yes, I've noticed that some people on here don't like it when people actually *question* their viewpoints and point out the blatant flaws in their arguments.
The witch burnings are over there on the Daily Mail pages --->
Oh and another PS: See this article: "Today's Facebook fury: Coppertone-like baby pic ban baffles US mom" from El Reg just last week.
I'm sure that that ban resulted from the actions of "reasonable" people too...
The word "reasonably" would laughable in this context if it wasn't such a fraught subject, because it is blatantly obvious that this is a subject about which it is virtually *impossible* to hold a "reasonable" discussion of!
The average man in the street/ on the Clapham Omnibus etc has had their viewpoint of the subject so skewed by the witch-burning tabloids and the like that even nearly a decade ago we had the nonsense of Julia Somerville being questioned by the Police over nude photos of her daughter in the bath
Now with the whole Jimmy Saville/ Rolf Harris/ whoever case, do you *really* think that things have or will change at all? The "reasonable" person in the street will see "naked child - child porn".
And don't forget that on the COPINE Scale even images that show "Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness" are can be rated as Class 1 Child Pornography if someone else considers that they are "inappropriately" connected with other images.
> You're highly unlikely to be prosecuted for the possession of anime, or a book for grown-ups with words instead of pictures.
"Highly unlikely" (in your opinion) != "Not going to happen" and it doesn't even matter if you're *not* prosecuted for it because if someone is even *arrested* on suspicion, that's enough for some people who will think "there's no smoke without fire" and will ostracise them, fire them, ruin their lives and their careers...
That is the sad state of affairs that the "Won't Someone Think of the Children" mentality has got us into.
EDIT - ADDENDUM
Oh, PS, I've just seen the following from you...
> Judging by the downvoting of posts condemning child porn, it would indeed seem like there are more than a few deviants on here who like that kind of thing.
So much for "reasonable"! They disagree with your points, therefore they're into child porn...
I rest my case.
> Just so I'm clear - you're ok with pornographic images of children as long as they're not in photographic format?
No, and please don't try to use Straw Man arguments like that on me, I get enough of them from a certain other poster...
Since you seem to be at least passingly familiar with the law you will also know that it is (as I alluded to in my post) already an offence to have drawn images which were eg traced from a photograph and I don't have a problem with that, because that was actually abuse of a child.
What I *do* have a problem with is laws criminalising something based on someone's completely subjective impression of what a fictitious image looks like or, indeed, if some in government get their way, a fictional *description*, which could end up with possession Nabakov's Lolita being a criminal offence!
That is going into the realms of Thought Crime.
> I believe the line of thinking is that if you "just" look at images of child abuse, you're enabling the creator of the content - a child has to be abused for the image to be created.
Yes, of course, that is why it is now a crime to possess images such as those in the Japanese Manga and Anime "Big Eyes, Small Mouth" style which are *drawings* that are completely fictitious, that were *never* based on photographs or video of actual acts, but, none the less, will get you arrested because the imaginary participants *look* like children to Western eyes and that's enough for the Tabloid reading public to demand that "Something Must Be Done!" and our Governments are entirely happy to oblige them.
> if the lack of advertising (which is pretty much what it is) for child abuse means that one less child is molested by someone that's a win in my book.
Right, because children were never abused *before* the advent of the internet or before the invention of photography or before...
The fact still remains that most abuse is perpetrated by a close family member or someone who is known to the child and that has and will still happen whether there are pictures out there or not.
Unfortunately, meanwhile, we get people trotting out the "if XYZ can stop one child fewer from being molested it's a good thing" argument which is then used as a justification by TPTB for more laws and more censorship and Default-on blocking software with secret lists of "unacceptable" websites all based on the cry of "Won't Someone Think of the Children!"
... at least the Lawyers didn't get the $400m and leave everyone else with the rest...
If you do the maths, you'll find that if you can accelerate at 1g for a year, you're going to end up travelling pretty damn close to the speed of light anyway, so all we need is a better form of Drive.
Nice suggestion, but on looking at the details...
Android 4.3 ONLY | NO ROOT | NO ADS
Updated - November 8, 2013
"So, what can we get people to ingest so we can detect this?"
"Dunno, fancy another pint?"
"Well, actually I could murder a curry right now..."
Ok, so how much did a certain soft drink company pay for *that* bit of product placement?!
... Thumbs up to the guy for not just sitting there and thinking "Someone should do something", but getting off his backside and getting it done!
Of course over here he wouldn't have been able to do it without forms signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters...
... none of this could be harmful to anyone's personal freedoms and civil liberties, isn't it?
At least it wasn't an Earth-Shattering Kaboom...!
ITYM "We want [Name]'s career to have a fitting end in the [name] system..."
... I've got Military Lasers on my Mark III Cobra...
... Right on, Commander!
> @Don Jefe: and your invention would be patentable (I think) in the UK and most other countries.
Regrettably, now that he's made the information public in a form which is visible in the UK, IIRC it is no longer patentable.
Perhaps we could have one over-arching organisation to deal with everything like this.
They could be called the GEneral STate POlice, perhaps...
> Actually, their argument tends to be, "We don't like it and we don't want our children seeing it (or liking it)
No, the "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" argument is just their excuse for trying to ban something that they don't want us seeing.
> How about this?
Given the number of porn workers, what's remarkable is the *low* number of people infected and the measures that the industry itself is willing to take to deal with the problem.
Now compare that with the rising number of young people who have not got the Safer Sex message and have contracted STDs...
> why should anyone object to that?
Because, as is traditional with with religious lobbies and the Mary Whitehouse Brigade and so on, the objection is "We don't like it, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to see it, just in case it makes you do something bad..."
Unfortunately, as with all such prohibitions, it only makes the "forbidden fruit" even more attractive and does nothing to actually stop the behaviours (such as rape, abuse, misogyny etc) which happen whether or not the viewer has seen it.
Regrettably, however, because of the "shame" that society surrounds such things with, few people are willing to stand up and say "I like this, I want to see it", so the politicians pander to the vocal minority knowing that it will go down well in the hypocritical media (Daily Fail, I'm looking at you) with their claims that they are "protecting" us/ society/ women/ children from harm, when, in fact, they're causing the opposite.
Google have, it seems, fallen for the same short-sighted view.
No, that's just stupidity and I don't see google blocking that any time soon...
> What you do NOT want is your mind state being transferred to Google
Have they invented Effectors, then?
And "it's for your own good" as the Vet said to the tom cat...
... Fintlewoodlewix is already taken...
> I'd much prefer it if electric shocks were built into the downvoting button instead.
I can think of a couple of posters on El Reg who would be fried to a crisp if this was introduced given the number of downvotes their posts have accrued...!
... and then fall asleep for half an hour or order a pizza?
> Reward for good behaviour is by far more powerful at creating the habit pathways in one's brain than punishment for bad behaviour is.
COMPU-TEACH: Good morning life-form.
COMPU-TEACH: Are you sitting comfortably?
COMPU-TEACH: Then stand up! Harsh Economic Truths, Class Seventeen. You are standing up?
COMPU-TEACH: Good. Posit: you are living in an exciting, go-ahead civilisation. Where are you looking?
COMPU-TEACH: What do you see?
PUPIL: The open sky. The stars. An infinite horizon.
COMPU-TEACH: Correct! You may press the button.
PUPIL: Thank you.
[Button is pressed. A surge of energy]
PUPIL: Wow! That feels nice.
- The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
> I'm wondering how agents of the US government can enter a foreign country and remove someone against their will
Does the expression "Extraordinary Rendition" not ring any bells?
The Americans have a long history of kidnapping people to bring them to "justice" and, of course, have a nice little understanding in their Courts that it doesn't matter *how* the defendant (who is, of course, supposedly presumed innocent, whether you have any sympathy for him or not) got there...
Re: The F1 GP - I actually sent a complaint message to BBC on Sunday because I was sitting down to watch the highlights of the British Grand Prix (having avoided any news etc earlier in the day) only to have BBC 3 News *immediately* before it announce the result in a way that was totally impossible to avoid seeing :-(
Yeah, the only problem then is avoiding the bloody spoilers from Trailers the BBC broadcast which give away massive hints as to what is going to happen, not to mention pictures of Cybermen stuck on the front of the Radio Times ruining any surprise as to the "big reveal"... :(
No, it only works when she's on top!
I'm sure the end result will be something we can all Share and Enjoy!
I said it to Wilbur and I said it to Orville, that thing will never work...
"We're on an express elevator to Hell. GOING DOWN!"
... ignoring the rights and wrongs of this, that footage from *inside* the fireworks display was bloody impressive!
Hey! You! Get off of my cloud! - The Rolling Stones
Why? Because it doesn't make money, that's why.
It's a cost on the bottom line, not a revenue generator so the bean counters don't want it, the bosses don't understand it and the coders are being pushed to get the product out, so security is ignored or pushed to the end of the line.
I find it ironic (well, absolutely hilarious, actually) that Matt Bryant keeps calling us "sheeple" yet his arguments boil down to him actually saying that he *wants* us to be obedient sheeple, to not question, to accept the State snooping into our private business, to let them do whatever they want because they're the "shepherds" and they're doing it for our own good and to protect us from all those nasty wolves which are out there.
Well, thank you, Matt, but frankly I'm not falling for that nonsense and neither are most of the rest of us on here. So you feel free to keep baaa-lieving that it's all to make you safer and knuckle under to the power of the State and that you're not at any risk because you're not important enough for them to worry about and that it doesn't matter that your data and information is being stored and recorded and kept on file but some of us won't be sheep and won't simply, blindly accept this sort of thing, but will stand up for our Rights and Freedoms that people have fought wars to protect.
Oh and the final ironic flaw: Shepherds? Sheep? Lambs to the slaughter...?
> Even data that the NSA has decided is irrelevant is retained by the agency
But I've been *ASSURED* that nobody is interested in us because we're just not important so *why* are they retaining this unimportant data?
Is this just the Precautionary Principle that "well you might be of interest to us later?" Perish the thought that there might be False Positives where some poor innocent sap gets caught up in the dragnet and then faces an accusation of a crime in a Kafka-esque secret court where he's not even allowed a proper defence because his legal team is not allow to actually examine the evidence against him.
Still, that's not harmful to Rights and Freedoms and Civil Liberties, is it?
> Yes, society is on the decline
ORLY? Since before the days of Juvenal, people have been bemoaing the decline of society (mostly due to people publishing/ broadcasting/ doing things that they don't approve of) yet, somehow, we haven't lapsed back into barbarism...
... that's lucky. Imagine what it would have been like if we'd received a whole load of cute pet xyplict photos back...
"...which will increase mobile data usage and power consumption."
Err, unless (as I do) I keep mobile data switched off until *I* decide to switch it on and use it...
> "NSA training manuals state that 300 terrorists have been captured using intelligence from XKeyscore before 2008"
And, of course, we all believe them, don't we, boys and girls? (After all, they wouldn't say "well, actually we haven't caught anyone, but that won't stop us trying!" would they?)
(Who are these terrorists? If they're terrorists and have been captured, surely they've been charged and convicted in a court of law so we can *know* that they're terrorists? If they haven't been charged and convicted, then wouldn't that just make them "alleged terrorists"? Or is a suspicion of them being terrorists enough to call that a success...?)
> Under US law it is all legal.
Oh, well *that's* alright then! Nothing to see, move along...
> It really would be terrible if you realised you are of zero interest to anyone.
Umm, did I mis-read this bit from the article: "the extent of the paranoid agency's targeting of Tor users, Linux Journal readers and and anyone else interested in online privacy"? Why would they be targeting these people if they were "of zero interest"?
"...which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State..."
... who will, if anyone finds out that we've been naughty, conveniently and retro-actively change the law so that what we did that was illegal is, suddenly, now entirely legal. Nice bloke!
> It isn't actually that hard to write into a law that it applies to the posting of pictures and comments intended to insult, humiliate or expose the victim to ridicule
Except, if you have any familiarity with the way such things are written (cf the Extreme Pornography laws) that is *not* what happens. Instead we get some vague and entirely subjective definition written into the law and then the mess is left for the Courts to sort out.
What this means, of course, is that you probably won't actually *know* if you're breaking the law until you find yourself arrested and accused.