They're nothing but amateurs, i can't believe El Reg would even give them the honour of an article!
Just when you thought it was safe to dip your toe back in the waters of internet smut, along comes a bunch of vigilantes who could be about to make life a great deal more worrying. Or perhaps not - read on and make your own mind up. This week, the new law on extreme porn went live throughout the UK (except Scotland). Hopes in …
I may have missed a trick here, but doesn't the site owners categorising illegal material mean that they had to download and vet it first? In which case, they would be guilty of the very crime they are trying to prevent. As they have no legal standing or powers, it's likely the defence of "we were downloading it to vet and report it" won't wash with the judiciary. It's either a joke or rather short-sighted in my opinion
"The law, which comes into effect today, was passed in response to a three-year campaign by the mother of the teacher Jane Longhurst, who was murdered by a man obsessed with hardcore internet pornography."
Presumably, had the murderer been obsessed with Harry Potter, we could have banned stories about witchcraft?
Perhaps, if he had been obsessed with children, we could have banned those instead? That wouldend child abuse overnight.
Who knows what their motives are? But one thing is certain - these kind of laws enable all sorts of self-styled advocates (or - yes - vigilantes) to set themselves up as some sort of moral arbiters for the rest of us, whilst hiding behind a very dubious legal curtain. Just look at the antics of Perverted Justice for all the evidence you need of how self-styled, morally superior internet watchdogs can quickly run out of control and yet, concurrently, enjoy practically no censure themselves from law enforcement. In other words, such laws as these enable idiots to declare 'open season' on anyone they figure is ripe for a good seeing to, without fear of legal ramifications = legalised bullying.
I realise this group might specialise in irony. I hope they do. I guess that remains to be seen, but if the advent of the 'online predator' (and all the myriad business opportunities it has presented for countless online (and offline) wholly unprofessional 'child protection' organisations it has offered) teaches us anything, it is that the very real danger is that this lot, like so many others before them, take themselves very seriously.
If a law is worth making, it's worth enforcing. Making a blanket of laws that are usually not enforced is giving police a license to arrest when they don't like the look of someone, and a precedent for ignoring others who are obviously breaking the law. This opens the police to cries of prejudice for every arrest they do or do not make. The more lawmakers ignore their duty, and shift judgment to police officers, the more the public image of the police force suffers.
If a law isn't worth enforcing, get it off the books.
The only way to find out whether a torrent contains illegal material, is to download it and view it. That is illegal. Perhaps the "extremeporn" vigilante is using his aims as a cover.
To presume the content of a torrent is illegal (without viewing it), and then shop people to the police on the assumption that they might be breaking the law, must be harassment, as there will be a proportion of false positives.
Can their software and users navigate sites that don't use western character sets? Pretty useless if they can't, but I'm not sure as to my take on them, are they taking the p--- by flooding the system or do they seriously believe in the cause of anti-extreme pronz.
Of course I agree that if the politicos have been stupid enough to put a law on the books they best make sure the s----y thing is enforced. If only to prove what a piece of turd it is and if it isn't enforced it should be got rid of.
One thing I've always wondered though, is if you look at the IP addresses on a torrent how do you know they're actually actively sharing unless you manage to connect to that machine and exchange data.
Also how has this person decided on what is extreme porn... oooo i like that idea, just report everyone who is downloading any porn! As an "ordinary reasonable" person who doesn't like swearing on TV let alone naked people you would be discusted by all of the filth out there!!!
I like it. I wouldn't do it (the filth all just nick you for wasting their time) , but I like it.
by name or by content?
How many times have you downloaded "Nasty dog animal teen anal rape sex hardcore XXX" and it turned out to be a run of the mill lesbian porn flick? A few thousand times no doubt.
And do people torrent for porn? Don't most people use something a little bit more ... private throuh embarassment or something?
Whether they are doing it seriously or because they want to redicule the new law, I still think they are bunch of twats and would be no great loss to the human race should their heads be accidentally introduced to a few bullets.
The vigilante says that "the torrents themselves are not illegal, as they do not contain any pornographic images". But they may send your "boss/girlfriend/lesbian partner/husband [.. an ..] abuse reports about my activities" and ".. We don't care. Sure, your life may be ruined now".
In other words, he doesn't care if f--ks up your life for doing nothing illegal.
Doing this is surely in contravention of the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Sounds like a bunch of jumped up little hitlers with too much time on their hands if you ask me.
There is also this on the web site...
"We are enforcers of the law where the government dares not tread, we are the watchers of perverts everywhere, we are legion."
So who elects them to be 'endforcers' huh? What gives them the right to decide what other users do with their internet connection. Sure there is a law and the police are there to enforce them.
I dunno, I'm surprised that they don't have Pink Floyd's Run Like Hell playing in the background on the site, I mean it sounds like they're doing to send any offenders back to mother in a cardboard box.
So if I stick a bunch of Tellytubbies episodes up on PirateBay and call it "The World's Best Snuff Movies!!!", will these cowboys go shopping everyone who downloads it to the police? Sounds like an ideal way to waste the cops' time... So in order to verify they're not reporting people who have done nothing wrong, these idiots are going to have to download and view the contents of every torrent they track, thus putting them in breach of the law they're zealously promoting.
Perhaps this is all a clever scheme by their members so they can download "extreme" porn with impunity under the guise of catching perverts and protecting citizens...
Is he a genius comedian or a total dick?
I'd love to go off on the stupidity of this idea but I suspect it's an effort to use the XP law to persuade people to start hiding all their traffic from the government, prying eyes, etc. See, e.g. the section about Tor on their FAQ.
We need an icon of a thumb hovering horizontally, like a Roman Emperor deciding the fate of a gladiator.
if said site found itself the target of a certain amount of electronic abuse. I suspect those peddling/seeding smut will not take kindly to this sort of behaviour and will take effective action. I hate to generalise, but I rather think that the more intelligent/capable denizens of the net are pro-free speech/expression. I may be wrong.
They should just stop caring now. The hate campaign against file sharers didn't go too well with all the man power and money behind that, did it? What makes them think a few nutbulls and one python script can do any better at this? No one really cares about this law, it'll hopefully all blow over and they should simply give up now before they embarrass themselves. Go and spend your time and resources in doing something useful and that people will thank you for, not send you abusive emails for. As a final touch of irony, I like how they used the expression 'Scot-Free', as all Scots are for the time being.
...that extreme porn is actually a direct cause of violent sex crimes.
Still, time will tell. Maybe there'll be research in a few years to show a correlation between the ban's introduction and a drop in violent sex crimes.
Meantime, I've made a prediction:
Nanny will elevate people who share her opinion above everyone else, and we'll have charities enforcing this law instead. IWF springs to mind (The people who make the filter list that decided Wikipedia was to be banned).
They're just people, but somehow when it's your view vs their view, your view counts for nought and they're view counts for everything, no discussion.
You see this (charities as law enforcement) happen in other walks of UK life:
Did you notice that RSPCA started wearing uniforms, and reading people rights like a pseudo police force, the laws were then changed so that they could seize animals prior to harm on their judgement. e.g. the fat dogs seized by the RSPCA:
You the owner have a opinion, they the charity, have an opinion. This law allowed their opinion to overrule yours. IMHO RSPCA's have killed more dogs than I ever will and so my opinion counts more than theirs. A fat dog is not necessarily worse than a dog put down because it could not find an owner.
RSPCA kills one third of all dogs it receives:
Another example, BBFC the film classification board is just a body set up by the studios to avoid legislation of taste, somehow it got written into laws (including this one), so now films require BBFC classification.
Charities as law enforcement.
>>>> We believe that the law should be enforced; not doing so breeds laziness and impreciseness in the legislature, lack of inspection of the law outside of the legislature, increased power of the executive due to selective enforcement and permits many people guilty - of a crime, if nothing else - to get away Scot-free … This is bad for everyone. <<<<
even if you disagree with the law, the fact that it did become a law must be remembered and it *MUST* be enforced. If they are going to be selective about enforcing the law, then there are a number of side effect. One that springs to mind at the moment, the law was passed to catch those that the government want to deal with but can _not_ since they didn't break the law.
to elaborate, someone who is annoying the government... annoying her really really REALLY bad. This law can be used as a way to catch this annoying person, make his/her "private interests" known to the public, shame him/her, then dare him/her to stand up and annoy her again.
that law have been based is a fact that can not be ignored, the law itself can be "selectively" enforced. If this law is allowed to have "exception" then be ready for other laws to have "exception" as well.
PH because she have nothing to hide, just like the rest of us (not)
So let's see... they're going to "categorise and monitor torrents." In other words, they're going to build up a collection of so-called extreme porn themselves. A legal friend tells me they could be the ones getting their collars felt by Mr Plod, as if their evidence is enough to secure a conviction under the Whacky Jacqui Act 200n, they themselves have broken the law by obtaining it. It's not as if they came across it accidentally and reported it to the police - they intentionally went looking for it. Mr Gleave needs to watch his step. The cops don't like competition.
(IANAL, but I'm posting this after speaking to someone who is).
"If there is a member of the public who is concerned that they have an illegal image in their possession, they should seek legal advice,"
So, you're not sure if you have things that are illegal. So you ask. If the answer is yes, then you can be locked up for producing it.
If no, then you've just wasted legal time. Would be amusing if everyone took 'innocent' pics and asked for legal advice if this were free, othewise, are we (the average public) expected to foot the bill for actually defining this fuzzy and imprecise law?
So they're going to monitor and grade the material which means they'll have to download and view it; thereby commiting the crime of being in possession of extreme pornography.
There may be a defence for legitimate people being in possession of extreme pornography; i.e. those people with the authority to investigate extreme pornography cases such as police officers, defence experts, etc. A vigilante group, no matter its intentions, will not be covered.
By downloading the torrents they will also be sharing their torrent as they download and so only help to propogate the material easier.
It boils down to what one might loosely refer to as the Pete Townsend defence: yes, I had this material, but I was doing so as a vigilant member of society / serious academic researcher / recovering victim. Which may be true, but strict liability offences are quite risky places to attempt to run that argument (because it can only be a plea in mitigation, not a defence).
And the vigilantes never quite explain how the legal system is supposed to tell the difference between the materials the vigilantes collected as part of their genuine pursuit of bad people, and the materials bad people posing as vigilantes collect as part of their bad peopledom. Indeed, if I wanted to collect large amounts of illegal material, a reputation as a doughty fighter against it would be good cover.
This legislation has been drafted with some interesting clauses. The most interesting is that the injuries required to fall into the net are to breasts, anus and genitals. The notable exclusion is buttocks, which means that 95% of BDSM material --- even really quite alarming, blood-drawing stuff --- is excluded. There was a case some years ago in which a bloke lent his friend a copy of a DVD from Rigid East (google for it, but probably not from your office) which was legal to possess and got jailed for distributing obscene material: there's an interesting legal argument to be had over material which is `that sort of thing' but not sufficiently `that sort of thing' to fall under the new legislation.
If your conclusions are correct, then they're actively sending people up the river for breaking censorship laws, as a form of protest against excessive government censorship.
So all the government and police have to do, to beat these guys, is to say "cheers!" and convict those who extremeporn have found for them. Thus turning the slightly odd minded, but presumably well meaning, freedom-o-speach chaps into Wacky-Jaque's pocket Stazi.
"Although if this site is genuine, it could be that the police will already have their hands full. ®"
I suspect that's the purpose. By providing a landslide, a deluge of preverts, it might serve to demonstrate just how ludicrous, impractical and un-enforceable this law might be.
Thumb up: watch where you put that thumb, it might be classed as "extreme porn"
To establish a proper police state you first need to make sure that everyone is always guilty of something.
You have to also do the ... if you have nothing to hide why do you object to being spied upon/randomly searched thing ...
So far the UK seems to be making steady progress in both directions.
I am willing to bet nobody is charged as a result of the information given to the Police, as no information will be give. As has been stated before, if they're based within the UK then they fall foul of the same legislation the rest of the general public does, and the very first case brought against somebody resulting from their notification will bring about the question "How did they know?"
I see this as a very short lived project, typical poorly thought out knee-jerk over-reaction I would expect from a middle-class over-educated and under-informed twit.
This site sure sounds ironical - alomost like a piece of ironic performance art.
I really hope actually use it to catch a few senior public figures, like the politicians who helped push this stupid, bad, wrong law through, or a judge or bishop or two. Now that's the kind of irony I'd like to see and might actually help get this law quietly removed a years or so down the road.
...is for wimps.
DDoS attackers are the ASBO weilding vandals of the hacking world, they spend their time breaking things because thats all the know how to do.
Proper hackers/crackers (Fuck off. I'll use whatever term I want) are like cat burglars. With the skill necessary to break in though a hole you didn't know existed, disable the alarms, and leave again undetected.
Reading between the lines, it looks like a clever move to highlight the ludicrousness of the law.
There is going to be a lot of people who fall foul of this law, but it is going to be one of those things not enforced often, and those are dangerous to have in your legal system. Theoretically everyone in the UK could be a criminal by now, it doesn't take much to break a law in the UK, and when that happens it makes a mockery of law itself.
Law needs to be clear, and ethical, otherwise it is just a tool of a despotic group.
People in authority tend to break these odd laws more than others, it is because these style of laws really don't make sense, and they release that, they also know they are used as control elements on a society, and they think of themselves as the controllers, manic delusion really. So, I would expect to see a lot of police, politicians, psychiatrists, doctors, civil servants fall foul of this particular law, should be interesting.
The following was recently posted to an email discussing law, liability, torrents and extremeporn.org.uk. Posted here with permission from the original author, a Dr Richard Clayton of Cambridge University.
I am sure that many, but perhaps not all, abuse teams are aware of the limitation of the above procedure, which is that having your IP attached to a torrent implies one of four things:
a) you are actively fetching or distributing the file
b) you are an academic researcher who is monitoring the torrent, but who is not uploading or downloading at all
c) your IP address has been selected at random by the owner of the tracker to add to the list of active IPs so as to bring this type of tracking into disrepute.
d) your IP address has been specially chosen by someone who wishes you harm and who has deliberately added it to the list of active IPs so as to cause you trouble.
Case (a) is what these people think they are dealing with.
Case (b) has been well documented by researchers at the University of Washington
Case (c) is believed to be behind the large number of incorrect copyright abuse allegations currently flooding the market :(
There is a strong belief in some quarters that The Pirate Bay is doing this deliberately (anyone with an on-the-record citation for this, I'd be really pleased to get this)
Case (d) is of obvious concern. The UofWashington people falsely accused their laser printers of sharing hollywood movies. In this area, there is an obvious risk of defamation or worse :(
It's a joke, but a sick one.
From their own site: "Media trials can be just as effective as court ones."
I see this as being a very clever attempt to point out the absurdity of the law; a bit like Howard Marks going into police stations with a lit bifter and demanding to be arrested (this was before the smoking ban; so nowadays he probably *would* be nicked, but not for the dope).
All those who are saying "it's illegal", it's a defence to any crime that committing it was the only way to prevent a greater crime.
maybe they are doing it to prove how silly this law is
it is interesting going back a couple of years to the law on replica fire arms I know a couple of major uk retail chains (one of who has just gone bust) that where selling toys that where then made illegal and there was a big discussion on weather those of us a posed to the law should report them and if the police did nothing we could then hold it up as an example of how stupid the law was
I think quite a few posters here are missing the point.
Lately our glorious leaders seem to be churning out laws in case they need them rather than because of an identified and understood need.
If they were forced to follow through with the application of these laws as written, it may make them think twice about passing more of these poorly thought out pre-emptive laws.
Further info - perhaps - to follow. However, as I am constantly reminded when I write about "the UK": Scotland is another country with its own increasingly divergent legal system.
So whether this proposal is practical or not (I edge toward "not"), it would currently be perfectly legal to run from a website based in Scotland.
Paris - as she is also not based in Scotland (how tenuous can you get?)
' "If there is a member of the public who is concerned that they have an illegal image in their possession, they should seek legal advice," the ACPO concludes.'
Legal advice from whom, exactly?
The Ministry of Justice?
The Crown Prosecution Service?
Who will all say "erm, dunno really... we don't know what's illegal...."
From extremeporn.org.uk: "... we are legion."
That strongly suggests they're Anonymous, in the sense of, "Anonymous is Legion. Anonymous does not forgive. Anonymous does not forget. Expect us."
It also means they're probably "doing it for the lulz". That would explain why it doesn't make much sense to many people.
Basically, it seems they're trying to stir up trouble, doing it for a laugh, that kind of thing, possibly regardless of who gets hurt in the process. Or they're doing what they're doing under that cover.
In their "Why do this?" section on their homepage, they make the following, excellent point.
"To look at the issue another way, why have law if it will not be enforced? And why bother obeying the law, if it will not be enforced? It is common logic nowadays that it "will not hurt" to break the law, since "they'll never know". The implication of this is clear - for such a state of affairs to proceed, it is essential that 'they' do NOT know - and, therefore, a person living in such a way will avoid doing things that will attract the ire of, well, pretty much anybody in a position of power. As such, lack of enforcement, counterintuitively, concentrates power in the hands of government, and reduces what oversight may be performed."
That's almost 1984 in a nutshell. One aspect of it, anyway.
Its a case of the Wolfman; the torrent vigilantes become (have become) what they have hunted passionately for so long; chain smoking coffee tanked torrent junkies with a taste for all things to do with the combined words 'extreme & pr0n'
Besides What manner of privacy craving pr0n addict would expose themself to the prying eyes of a torrent admin?
Its a damn good example of how stupid an idea the whole thing is. Well done to the people with the mind to set it up. If the government wants to pass stupid laws, they can expect a stupid response. Thanks government.
Besides, I bet it'll catch a few of the people who voted for this kind of crap in the first place...You know the type.
What about the IWF?
The IWF don't seem to be dealing with "extreme" porn unless it's hosted in the UK. And even then, they're dealing with it as "Criminally obscene content hosted in the UK."
Since they were dealing with such material anyway, they don't seem to have changed their practices at all when it comes to "extreme" porn. This fits with the long-standing government line that the "extreme" porn law only covers material that would have been illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act anyway.
As for "extreme" porn hosted outside the UK, the IWF seem to be doing nothing. There's certainly no option on their reporting page for such cases.
That rather suggests campaigners' efforts to use the IWF to try to determine what counts as "extreme" porn are unlikely to work.
So I start a download in England whilst travelling across the border (assuming my connection stays intact) and the download completes in Scotland - have I broken the law or not?
Does it matter if I drive the other way?
What if my hard drive is in Scotland but my monitor is in England?
... having read through the site, especially the FAQ page, I'm tending towards the idea that this is a spoof, albeit a rather weak one.
I'm not really sure what the authors of the site are attempting to achieve with it, if it is being ironic and satirical they should perhaps add a few more elements such as Martin Salter MPs claims of the existence of snuff movies and a link to the Snopes page debunking the myth to make it more obvious.
PS Yesterday I saw a video clip of a young lady with very large Bulgarian Airbags, trying to ride a bicycle whilst topless.
She proceeds to lose her balance and fall off and it seems that some of the impact was taken by said Airbags.
My question is: Would this be "Extreme Porn"? Well, she's topless, so if you like over-inflated boobs, that could definitely fit the "for sexual arousal" category. I'm sure someone would find it "disgusting or otherwise of an extreme nature" and since she falls off and lands on her breasts, clearly this is "likely to result in serious injury"...
Google "Adam Gleave": a Detective Constable with that name shows up. Would a copper really do this stuff?
G turns this up too: http://web.archive.org/web/20051219084309/www.metawire.org/~parasitical/
Looks similar to the extremeporn site. Coincidence? Bit more Googling on the e-mail address there suggests he's a techie.
C'mon, let's see some investigative journalism into this Adam Gleave.
How about as a show of good faith, the honorable <cough> elected members of parliament all bring their computers into work for the police to have a dig around and prove how gleeming white they are?
What no takers... so it's one law for those outside parliament and another law for those trapped in the 1984 animal farm nu-labour have created... These people are so strung out on power and ridiculous expense claims that they dont understand the terms 'fair and balanced'.
Anonymous as I can hear the black helicopters overhead with wacky Jacqui cackling in the back!
Buy your ducking stools, here, burning torches, lets chase the heritics out, we can't burn little old aldies anymore and if you touch her moggy the RSPCA get stressy, so lets burn the sexual deviants even if they are not doing any harm!
Remind me of a cartoon strip in 2000AD comic where it is no longer "pc" to hate the aliens, so the Arch BIGOT (I kind you not) I summonded upon to find someone new for the masses to hate, so they their attention is kept away from the real issues. He came up with freckled folks, and boy was the retoric he came out with spiteful and vengeful!
So watch out you frecklees, you could be next!
If this site is satire then it's weaker than the output of my bladder this morning (I drank several large glasses of water last night so I'm sure you get the idea). If the author is trying to take the p*ss then he's failing abysmally. Satire is Spitting Image, Private Eye, Tom Lehrer...
I watched Casino Royale yesterday. There's a scene where 007 is tied to a chair with his genitals hanging through where the seat would be if it hadn't been cut out. The bad guy then takes a large rope, swings it and hits 007 in the genital region, specifically the testicles. Hard. Several times.
Isn't this now classed as extreme porn? Made my eyes water....
Satire is almost dead because people don't understand how it works - they approach it like Alanis approaches irony. Also, because THE WORLD IS SO ABSURD, etc.
Ah the Casino Royale thing. Well, it's part of a film so it's fine anyway, but why would it be classified as porn? Because he's naked? As far as I know nudity is not synonymous with sexuality. I know it is for many of the intellectually feeble and inexplicably afraid and irretrievably repressed, but I doubt they could get away with 'banning' that scene under this law.
Thanks Sarah. I had to ask my sister who Alanis is (she's not on my radar. Doro Pesch, on the other hand...) On the CR thing, I'm looking from the point of view that this scene is genital torture, regardless of whether or not he is clothed. His bare genitalia take one hell of a beating. Surely the kind of thing this "legislation" was intended to prevent because the "government" believes that seeing images of torture encourage people to go out and commit evil crimes?
Just curious. Personally after seeing CR I went and brutally drowned an Assam tea bag in boiling water and then went and murderously chopped up some vegetables before boiling the remains in hot water.
Oh dear, I guess that makes the "government" thinking right....
Opposition to the "extreme" porn law is still growing, as is opposition to the "cartoon" porn law in the Coroners and Justice Bill currently going through the Commons.
The Telegraph have this (rather inaccurate) article.
"New pornography laws 'could make comic books illegal', say campaigners
New laws designed to tackle extreme and child pornography could make owning mainstream comics like Batman or Judge Dredd illegal, campaigners claim."
The article links to Comic Shop Voice.
"Ah the Casino Royale thing. Well, it's part of a film so it's fine anyway, but why would it be classified as porn? Because he's naked? As far as I know nudity is not synonymous with sexuality. I know it is for many of the intellectually feeble and inexplicably afraid and irretrievably repressed, but I doubt they could get away with 'banning' that scene under this law."
well I have seen more erotic stuff with more cloths on as porn and I have seen clips form other monies (the whipping Sean in starship troopers) put on SM porn threads so.....
Pity how the media are only picking up on this AFTER the laws are introduced... Still, maybe it will make people pay a bit more attention to what's going on...
OK, I've been a bit slow on the uptake here. The whipping scene in Flash Gordon comes to mind as well. *thinks.... Hang on, I've got that on DVD somewhere... oh bloody hell.... *wonders what else in my classic sci fi DVD collection would get me nicked as well...*
Looking over the site again trying to see satire or humour in it and like my David Gower like cover drive, it can't be found.
They're going to track people down with GeoIP? Ha, it can't even get the right county for the IP I've got at the moment.
The fact that they put their trust in GeoIP suggests that they are technically inept. The fact that they don't realise that dodgy types change their IP frequently adds weight to the suggestion. The fact that they haven't heard of anonymous proxies, changing IPs frequently or wardriving confirms it.
Then there is the matter of their obsession with torrents. Part of my job is web filtering and the reports that I see demonstrate clearly that material that breaks this law is openly and freely available on the wibbly wobbly web.
If ACPO say they are not going to police this law, then what difference do they think it will make if they report these "transgressors" to their ISPs. Why would the ISP do anything if they know the law isn't being enforced?
And finally they have a very shaky grasp of the law. Our system of common law means that no law on the statute books is as solid as they believe, indeed it means little or nothing until it has been tested by the courts.
These people have showed that they don't understand technology, they have showed that they have no grasp of reasoning and no knowledge of legal matters. I can only assume that this demonstrates that they have a tenuous hold on reality.
Paris? Even she isn't that clueless. However when it comes to the posession of pornograpghy she's no expert, she doesn't seem to be able to hold onto it for very long.
OK, this is way off-topic, but this has bugged me for a while. The exemplars of irony in the Alanis song were indeed ironic if read as intended - for lyrical compactness the 'other side' of the irony was implied, not stated.
To wit - 'rain on your wedding day': The implication is that it's been sunny for weeks and then rains on the one day that's important. 'Black fly in Chardonnay' - the implication is that it's not a black fly in your crappy office coffee; it's in a *particularly* important beverage. You have crappy coffee for months with no flies, and the one time you have Chardonnay there's a fly...
The rest of them were pretty much the same, IIRC. Some of it wasn't exactly stellar irony even given the implications, but most people seem to be too thick to understand the most obvious skipped thought-steps in pop lyrics, while in the process of lambasting same as being clumsy. It's a little ironic, don't you think?
Vigilantes are the "useful idiots" of today - look it up. However, looking ahead I wonder if one will ever have to declare usage of vpns/encrypted channels. There could be random inspections and penalties for failing to declare to ensure general compliance. Then slowly the screws could be turned to reestablish state purview over all communication. vpns must stand out like beacons in the night at the moment. Steganography perhaps will come in vogue - inside video streams perhaps.
...you're a member of the police. It's a quiet day in the station (not much crime on a wednesday morning) so you're having a nice relaxing coffee and watching telly.
In walks your CO, he carries with him a massive stack of papers. Each sheet contains a reported IP, a torrent URL and a filename. You're told to "process these".
So, you have to:
Download the torrent (lets say they're running a bloody quick connection and the torrent's well seeded): 1 hours
View the video: 2 hours
Submit the content to the censors so they can decide if it's bad: 1 hour - 3 weeks
Chase up the ISP for the user details: 1 hour - 3 weeks.
So the MINIMUM processing time for a SINGLE report, would be 5 hours, and thats assuming the various departments are shit hot and deal with things fast.
So you've got a stack of 2000 reports, each is going to take you 5 hours minimum, and your CO says to hurry up because there'll be another batch in tomorrow.
I think this is a great idea, sadly the police will just ignore all of these reports.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019