* Posts by Kiwi

2604 posts • joined 26 Sep 2011

Click here to see the New Zealand livestream mass-murder vid! This is the internet Facebook, YouTube, Twitter built!

Kiwi Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: restrictions to weapons

But the problem won't be solved by banning automatics if somebody's determined enough

But we must have less guns! Guns are bad and kill people!

Lets just ignore the fact that in the last 24 hours more people have died from alcohol than from guns, more have died from the use of cars than from guns, probably more have died in home and work accidents, many many more have died from preventable starvation and disease, if only us richer people weren't so damned greedy and selfish.

This guy had a car with a decent amount of cargo space. A little more thought into his IEDs (shoulda spent more time in the library, easy to avoid the censors and the sensors that way!) and he could've gone out in a "blaze of glory" and killed a LOT of people as well.

Admittedly, his method perhaps was one of the more effective methods, just like how the Washington Sniper killed relatively few yet had quite a significant effect on the area, but he could've done more damage without guns.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Root causes

I've had dealings with regional police in NZ. Unless handed everything on a silver platter they're unlikely to take action to prevent crime occurring(+)

(+) In a number of cases the _police_ have been the criminals.

I could tell you stories, but I think you may've already come across some of them.

I guess according to some here on El Reg that makes us both anarchists! :)

I'm always amazed at how NZ police seem to rate as the least corrupt in the world, yet I don't think you'll find a lazier more incompetent self-entitled bunch anywhere else.

Kiwi Silver badge

TBH I beilieve the only way you get the likes of Facebook and Youtube to behave is to threaten to offficially sinkhlole all DNS records referring to the organisations for a period of time.

A lot of advertisers made a fuss recently about boycotting YT over the supposed paedo problem (though I suspect many of them got back to their normal practise the moment we were focused on something else).

Perhaps pointing out to these advertisers (as publicly as possible) that by using FB they are associating their brand with a firm that promotes terrorist videos and murdering children will get their attention, and get them to go elsewhere.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Remove beer tax, back to the pubs.

So perhaps raise the bar or ban public ownership of semi-automatic guns/rifles. Plus encourage people to be a little more moderating of people they mix with, gotta be strong to do that.

Actually, with a lot more of the latter, there probably wouldn't be much of a need for the former. The same family who taught my to shoot and how to kill animals also taught me a lot more than most about respecting animals, caring for them, caring for the land and so on. They also taught me a lot about respecting others and how to 'play nice' even when you really hate the other person and every thing they stand for.

More teaching people how to play nice with others, getting people out into social realms and social norms and modelling what is good. When role models are Bruce Willis and the like, where the "hero" murders unarmed surrendering crims (DH3, scene near the end where a guy raises his hands and shouts "don't shoot" in German), well I can understand modern man being a little mixed up. I enjoy "action movies" from time to time, but I'd also like to see more modelling of decent actions, even in the worst of circumstances.

That said, a friend watches a lot of old "western" movies. Ones where the idea of killing someone over some tiny imagined slight is romanticised heavily. I'm starting to wonder if the distance between us from modern tech is really such a bad thing after all :)

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Why share?

Yeah well, I did get the name wrong though I cannot recall the name of the game I was meaning.

Some of us have too much RL experience to go looking into other rape material out there. Enjoy it as you wish, and hopefully you'll never know what the other side is like.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: "the video would have been shared differently"


But from your posts one can conclude you live in a fantasy world where you make stuff up to suit your own mind, and you read things into posts that have never been said, then try to argue as if what your own weird imagination dreamed up is reality.

It is likely to be a waste of time explaining anything to you as your reality distortion field is way to strong, but the reason my family distrusts the police is summed up in my original post in this thread.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Errr, censorship?

Can anyone prove its possibility or impossibility with actual concrete numbers?

It's NOT impossible for YT or FB et al to screen every single video that is uploaded before they are made available.

However, we would notice a slight decrease in the amount of content available on these platforms.

For the most part I would not mind. There is a lot of rubbish there that I would not ever wish to view, and a lot of stuff I really wish was gone. However, it would impact on the stuff I do sometimes watch. I either get the vids I like and every one else gets the vids they like, or we all get stuff-all.

A trust system may be useful, which would still let a large amount of stuff go up untouched but those prone to posting less "socially acceptable" stuff would find it harder. Although, again, that could make it harder for me to see the videos I sometimes like to watch.

Kiwi Silver badge
Paris Hilton

It isn't remotely that simple and it never will be. Define trade? "My" website being hosted in Delaware, where "I" enjoy free speech protections may run foul of your law in NZ. If NZ citizens are accessing it, then that's neither "my" fault, nor something "I" can specifically prevent (VPNs exist, for instance).

These questions have been nutted out a long time ago for the most part, and the legal system has been prosecuting people for some years based on crimes committed in other jurisdictions.

The Delaware example aside (I actually probably have greater FOS in NZ than those in the US do), if I create child porn involving neighbourhood kids and host it on your server, and they're ID'd as NZ kids, then there will be legal ramifications for you even if the content is legal where you are. That may be as little as a demand for logs, but don't be surprised if you find yourself in a tighter spot than you should be. We still have the KDC case being argued after all, yet what he was accused of was not a crime in either NZ or the US.

There have been several other instances of people acting in one jurisdiction being nabbed or at least charged in another. El Reg has, IIRC, run some articles on this over the years.

I certainly don't expect all of the web adheres to NZ law. There are many parts of NZ law I disagree with, and I would hate to think of other people being bound by such things. I do expect sites to follow the laws of the land where they operate however, even if it is something I disagree with.

El Reg, for example, operates within the UK even though I may be able to reach it from within my living room. I would expect El Reg to operate under UK law. El Reg also has offices in a couple of other countries, and where they operate out of those offices I would expect them to follow the laws of those lands.

Geoblocking is another matter, and I have in the past blocked many thousands of people based on the ISP or block they operate from. Also I know from personal experience that the use of a VPN does NOT prevent a site from blocking people, you just need to block the appropriate range of IP's and it's done, end of story. I personally abhor the practice but I understand that other people do not like people trying to protect their ID so they block as much traffic as they can.

Sure, sometimes the details are a little harder to manage (eg with import/export by different companies or people - but then it's usually on the importer to be sure things are right), but the theory itself is very simple. Tax dodgers try to make out it's complex, but it isn't really.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: "How many people when they drive past a road accident can't resist rubber necking"

I went through a (short lived) phase of looking at dashcam videos of car accidents because I was trying to improve my driving skills, and thought that looking to see if I could anticipate the accidents might help me in general driving.

I did much the same, and for the same reasons.

I honestly wish I had not done so. There are things that I would love to forget. As time passes, more is forgotten, but still...

At one point I nearly gave up driving.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Why share?

"I know from people I've had the misfortune of actually knowing that there are groups with very racist views down there"

The mayor is obviously talking out of his arse. I lived in NZ for a couple of decades, of which I spent maybe a dozen nights in Christchurch. Both times I've been assaulted on the street have been there, and while I can't be certain of the political views of the skinheads with swastika tattoos that were busy stomping on me, I'd have guessed at somewhat right of center.

My friend, I fear you may have met some of the very same people I was referring to, and perhaps under much the same circumstances (although I have never walked anywhere in drag).

Some of those I know go through former business contacts as well. Finding out what I know now about these people was not a pleasant experience.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Why share?

This is the "NZ Way" of dealing with problems - pretend they don't exist and if that doesn't work, shut down or take over the outfits showing them up.

I'd love to say that it's all National's fault ("What housing crisis? Thousands of homeless families isn't a housing crisis!"), but.. Well..

As to the rest of your post, afraid I'll have to plead the 5th there ;)

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Why share?

There's a new computer game in which, apparently, the main plot is rape (as in: you're a character that goes round raping women).

I believe it was called "Leisure suit larry" and came out in the early 90's? Not exactly new (I may be mis-remembering the game some)

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: "the video would have been shared differently"

So, basically, you're an anarchist who feel order is always misused and that ANY problem in your area is a YOYO.


Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Responsibility

You have to get at them, first. What do you do when the C-Suite suddenly relocates to a country that refuses to extradite?

Ah yes.. All the countries that refuse to extradite to the US are of course wonderful places to live, with the same climate, freedoms and opportunities one finds in California.

There is a slight problem of course.

You have to get their first.

Have you spoken to your lawyer about suing your "reality" drug dealer for false advertising?

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Responsibility

1. Recognise sovereignty of Facebookia


5. When Facebookia beg for peace demand massive reparations.

You think it'll go down like that?

Where do I sign the petition for the immediate recognition of the country of Facebookia?????????

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: It can be difficult, but..

As unpalatable as it seem, they need an outlet.

It should not be 'unpalatable', although sadly so many find it so.

It is common for people, especially during their teenage years, to have some quite "far out" and sometimes downright scary ideas and ideals. Most of us experience(d) this.

The cure, for most, is to voice these ideas in a place where someone will show you the error of your ways. If you have bad ideas and others can show you why, then you no longer have bad ideas.

Of course, some people cannot be influenced, and others instead of finding a voice of reason find waiting ears ready to devour their every word.

But for the most part, reason and wisdom can change them. But to get that reason and wisdom, they need to speak out their foolishness first.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: It can be difficult, but..

Or will the Darknet crowd start copying and spreading their stuff into the mainstream like a plague,

Given the number of miscreants inhabiting "Darknet", given the stuff they'd love to have "mainstream", and given the lack of their stuff appearing in mainstream places, I think you give them waaaaaaaay too much credit.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: It can be difficult, but..

NZ isn't Afghanistan.

Lots of people here have money and motivation, yet such breakouts DON'T happen.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: It can be difficult, but..

(you can tell this is personal for me).

I grew up gay in 1970s rural NZ. Trust me when I say I know what it is like to be the victim of violence simply for existing.

That scene in "V for Vendetta" where V makes Evy(sp) "no longer afraid" - you can get an idea of why I do not fear things like others do, years of torment wiped the fear away.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: El Reg follows common sense!

Forget newspapers and social media, most of the sharing of that video will be by torrent and that's not going to be easy to stop.

Flooding the torrent sites with fake videos might help it. Bury the real one?

Or will that start a "bidding war" where the other side puts up so many copies of it? Still, at least if they start pumping out copies it increases the chance that sharers of this get caught and prosecuted.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: El Reg follows common sense!

they never say "X organisation has admitted responsibility", it's always "claimed" as if there is a bizarre competition going on.

I cannot think of any specific examples, and it's way too early in the morning to fart around with google etc, but I believe there have been incidents where one group has remained silent and another group has 'filled the void', and also cases of a plane crashing for as-yet-unknown reasons where a terrorist group has claimed responsibility, only to turn out it was something not related to terrorism that caused the crash.

Hence they say "dumbfuckcowards claimed responsibility" at least until "it is established that dumbfuckcorwards committed the cowardly murders"

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: El Reg follows common sense!

The newspapers aren't exactly the origin of this language.

No, but they are well-known for not exactly being honest these days :)

As to the rest of your post.. Dammit, I was about to head to bed! Now I have to clear the mind of horrors before I do! :(

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: El Reg follows common sense!

Personally I'm in favour of giving this scum a cell made out of container to live in on White Island..... as close to the biggest active vent as possible.

Tempting, but the chance of a quick exit are way too high. How about somewhere near Rotorua? But one can get used to the smell, or so I am told.

Perhaps he should have Muslim music piped into his cell 24/7 though, at least a few days a week.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Facebook and Twitter weren't the only places...

Is there a technical solution? How about forcing new content providers to be moderated/delayed by a few hours to allow a % of their content be checked.

A "trust" system could perhaps be employed. If you have enough "trust points" you can live-stream until such a time as you lose some points. Don't have quite enough, some people can get your stuff early (eg family and friends - I can see issues here though) but most others will have to wait. Lower still and everything has to pass through a human moderator for approval.

Yes, I realise this smacks of China's social credit system, but sometimes just because a reputedly scumbag country (ab)uses a system doesn't mean it is automatically bad to use it elsewhere.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: And yet, in US states - and countries...

citation please

Here ya go. Take a look at the charts further down in the article. Only posting it now because I came across it a little while ago.


(WARNING There is a video embedded in this article that I have not seen (I have youtube's JS blocked by default so it won't play), but the site does give a warning about the video and it may be illegal to view in some places, and certainly could be upsetting for some people - including myself I suspect)

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Ambiguity; not in this case.

"in the US you can shoot someone dead for simply stepping onto your property"

Liar. You still need a good reason.

Do you know what a lie is? Somehow I doubt it. I'll explain below.

But, without more than a few minutes searching, I came across this snippet of law from Texas :

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

(source https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Americans-have-the-right-to-kill-someone-for-trespassing-on-their-property-but-in-the-UK-you-have-to-use-reasonable-force)

I did not read the full article.

What is claimed as "reasonable" will differ widely. A person well-trained in hand-hand combat, with a dozen of his army mates, going up against a single person who is naked and dazed probably would not be able to convince anyone they had a reasonable fear. An old lady, with a dozen people in their late teens carrying baseball bats, however, could make such a claim.

I normally am loathe to quote Shittypedia, but :

"[T]he 'stand your ground' law... provide[s] that a person has a right to expect absolute safety in a place they have a right to be, and may use deadly force to repel an intruder..."
(emphasis mine)

and :

Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."
(again, emphasis mine)

(source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Another one from the same source :

Initially, the local police quickly questioned and released Rodney Peairs, and declined to charge him with any crime because—in their view—Peairs had been "within his rights in shooting the trespasser".

(source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori)

This was a case of a person going to the wrong address for a halloween party. I do not recall the case from the time it happened and stumbled across it from a linked WP article following on from the first one I mentioned. In this case, while the people who did the shooting were found not guilty in a criminal trial, they did lose a civil trial later.

A stronger argument can be made from HG.ORG though, a site supported by several US law firms :

In some states, the belief regarding the intent of the other party does not need to be reasonable. In a growing number of states it is legal to shoot someone if they are in your house uninvited. Sometimes called the “castle doctrine,” this legal standard makes it possible for one to defend not just their person and their family, but also their property, all using deadly force so long as it occurs in one’s home. According to the laws of many states, the belief that the other person intends harm does not need to be reasonable when exercising the castle doctrine. Some states have begun expanding the zone of defense to include the outside of a home, such as one’s yard or even their neighborhood. Still, even under the castle doctrine, it is generally not allowed for one to shoot a common trespasser or to lure someone into the protected zone for the purpose of justifying lethal force.

(source https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/when-is-it-okay-to-shoot-someone-35050

Note here, they claim it does NOT require a reasonable belief of an intent to harm to shoot someone, although they do state that it is "generally not allowed" for you to shoot a common tresspasser. the use of the word "generally" strongly implies that in at least one jurisdiction within the US it is legal to shoot a common tresspasser, and if that is the case then what I initially said is true, "in the US you can shoot someone dead for simply stepping onto your property"

I'm still not done.

It seems like an obviously unnecessary escalation: An argument about a convenience store parking space turned into deadly violence. Michael Drejka, after being shoved to the ground, shot and killed Markeis McGlockton, who had pushed Drejka but started to back off.

But Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said the authorities will not charge Drejka for the shooting, citing the state’s “stand your ground” law.

(source https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/7/23/17602312/stand-your-ground-florida-michael-drejka-markeis-mcglockton WARNING There is a video embedded in this article that I have not seen (I have youtube's JS blocked by default so it won't play), but the site does give a warning about the video and it may be illegal to view in some places, and certainly could be upsetting for some people - including myself I suspect)

So a person shoves someone who is harassing him and his family, then starts to leave. The other person (who, BTW, has a history of threatening people in such cases) shoots him and kills him in a public car park. In front of his children, I might add. The authorities refuse to prosecute because he was allowed to shoot to kill. The site does have an update notice to say the shooter was charged with manslaughter, but it is still clear that the police initially refused to charge him because shooting people over such trivial incidents is considered legal in the US. (And yes, shoving someone to the ground during an argument is absolutely trivial!)

At least Arizona seems to have somewhat sane self-defense laws.

I do NOT claim the sources are accurate, just what someone will find searching for such matters on Google. Those from law firms should at least carry some weight, even if I did quote wikipedia in this.

I deal with various online forums which have US citizens present, and have often been told by people in that country that they have various rights about shooting people who enter their property or act in other ways. I have witnessed motorcyclists lobbying for "stand your ground" laws to be extended to allow them to shoot car drivers who cut them off, or are percieved to be following too closely.

As such, a person who does not live in the US but comes across this material on Google et al, and over many years hears it from various citizens of the US, and sees it portrayed on many TV shows could reasonable be expected to believe that such is the case in the US.

All that said, I will invite you to show where I have been a "liar" as you claim.

Now to explain what a lie is, since you appear not to know. A lie is stating something you believe to be false. Lets say I tell my friend that I know your name is Peter Jack Tompson, and you live at 112525 Hampshire Boolevard, Boggleton, The Shire, London. If you had told me your name was Tim Bucktoo, and you live at 1600 Pensylvania Ave, Washington DC, I would be telling a lie. However, if you had given me the first name and address then even if it was a false name and address, I would NOT be lying by passing it on. I would be honestly stating what I believed to be your real details. I would not be telling the truth, but I would not be lying.

IOW, I honestly believe that in some parts of the US you can shoot someone for stepping on to your property, and I believe i have demonstrated how that is a reasonable belief backed by US law.

Christ alive, if someone with your attitude is allowed firearms, it really does prove that the psychological checks they are supposed to carry out don't work.

And yet, I have been able to back my argument up with several sources. Do you care to apologise for your claim?

(I would've liked to have previewed this to check the HTML works etc, however El Reg has that stupid broken captcha shit coming up again, which does not seem to allow previewing - PLEASE FIX IT!)

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: "in the US you can shoot someone dead for simply stepping onto your property"

And you should be able to stream it live, and brag about it - to feel like an hero, while making Zuckerberg richer?

First, I'll invite you to show me where I said such a thing.

Second, just one word. "Cops".

Third, "Live P.D."

Need I say more?

I do not watch or support these things. There is more than enough trauma in my life without me adding other people's pain to it, and there is far more than enough pain in this world so I cannot understand why people seek to view other's misfortune.

Oh, and lest we forget, 9/11 - where the world got to watch on live TV (many of us on breakfast TV) footage of hundreds of people dying instantly as planes hit buildings, and later watching as dozens of people leapt or fell to their death, and then those final glorious moments where TV execs wet themselves with glee as the towers fell while ratings soared, all on live TV.

I don't defend this trash.

Kiwi Silver badge

The option is that they work to the laws in the country they operate, they already do on some of the examples you give or they wouldn't be allowed to operate.

Ok, but in which country do you think a multinational operates? The answer can't be "all of them" because of the conflicting laws across nations would be an impossible bind.

Pretty simple in concept, though a bit harder in practise.

NZ has laws around how old you have to be to appear in pornos, age of consent, what is objectionable material and so on. If you operate a chat room in NZ then you either watch for such material and make sure it fits within the law, or you risk your equipment being seized and you having a nice chat with the fellow in the blue uniform.

If your service is reachable in NZ but your hardware and personal are elsewhere, and you seriously fall foul of the law, expect extradition proceedings to be commenced, or at least your own government to be asked to look at your activities.

If you wish to trade with people in NZ, you trade under NZ law. If you don't wish to trade under NZ law, you don't trade with people in NZ.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: So much with which to disagree!

In a way, I understand Kieren has already got his way. Someone mentioned that in New Zealand you can get 14 years in jail for distributing the video, 10 years for possession. I haven't checked the veracity of that.

It's the maximum sentence for distributing or possession of "objectionable material" as far as I recall the law. The same crime for child porn.

It would be unlikely for someone possessing this video, or having passed it on when it was floating around FB, to get any sort of sentence like that. They may, however, get an early morning "knock" on the door and find some men very interested in the contents of their computer, and may find they no longer possess said computer. Oh, and such "knock" being administered by a small version of a battering-ram and by "early" I mean WTF-o'clock. Though they may just pick you up from your work, loudly proclaiming they wish to search your computers for "objectionable material", and forever more painting you as a child molester in front of your colleagues. That is unless you're fortunate enough to get your name in the paper along with a very clear mention that the charge was over this video - but note if you have any family photos including children then the paper will truthfully say "computer found to have pictures of young children" and if they were only wearing swimwear at the beach they'll add the phrase "in various states of undress" for good measure.

The beer is for the rest of the post. Well said!

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: I disagree completely with this

What if the host's law clashes with the client's law, and each claims legal jurisdiction?

Still pretty simple. If you're a US company and you wish to trade in New Zealand, then you trade under NZ law, subject to international agreements/treaties. If US law prevents you selling an item to NZ'ers, then you don't sell that item as a US company.

It really is a pretty simple concept.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: El Reg follows common sense!

They will no longer be able to use empty language, like "paid his debt to society," or "claimed responsibility" for an act of terrorism.

This I would love to see implemented!

But you have to understand.. I don't think even the greatest technology could get truth into newspapers, even if it is just changing the way a few pages are written.

I would be totally against the idea of changing what is already written. Write a counter piece maybe, to point out someone's error, but do not change was was said.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: It can be difficult, but..

Tell that to people in Africa, Afghanistan, and so on. Lots of people die young, and you call that c'est la vie?

People die young all over the world. My first experience with a person dying was when I was 4 or 5. I still remember when I was 9 or 10 the news coming in that a teenage boy known to our family had died in a car accident and another friend was being charged with 'careless driving causing death' as a result of his actions.

Dying as a result from injuries obtained in a car accident isn't a peaceful way to die. Drowning in the sea or a river appears to be an incredibly terrifying way to go - I was caught in a sea current as a teenager and only by luck caught a boulder at the very end of my energy. I still remember how utterly terrifying that was (I wasn't a Christian at that stage so was still scared of dying).

I absolutely value life, as I am sure my posts over the years will have shown.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Hit them where it hurts

I'm sure some creative mind in the NZ public prosecutor could come up with a connection that would stick; terror, as a political act, is enabled through dissemination of images of its occurrence, and every disseminator takes on some vicarious responsibility for the act.

Terrorism is a relatively rare occurrence in NZ. As such, our terrorism laws are "untested".

The reports I have read so far indicate that the prosecutors will NOT be using any terrorism-related laws in relation to this. 50 counts of murder will likely see the perp locked up for the rest of his life, and they do not desire for him to be released, or get a lighter sentence, on a 'technicality'.

Kiwi Silver badge

There has already been at least one arrest in NZ over the sharing of this material.

ISP's have a form of "common carrier" status. FB, however, may be in another boat especially as NZ's censors have deemed the video "objectionable", and watching or distributing it carries a potential prison sentence.

Kiwi Silver badge

As for using AI to identify terrorist videos, I think with today's video game graphics being very realistic and only getting better with every generation, it would make it hard for AI to identify when it is real and when it is someone just live streaming the latest FPS.

Something I have wondered as well myself.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Remove beer tax, back to the pubs.

Remove tax from beer, turn Internet off.

Pretty sure more people have died from beer than from fanatics (well, not counting during war)

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Simple

I agree fully with the latter, but still like un-moderated media such as El Reg. I keep in touch with a wide portion of family and friends, and have only had one friend complain that I don't use FB.

Of course, El Reg sometimes has every post moderated, and I think sometimes they use a trust system as well (ie I don't rank highly enough or am too annoying a twat so on some threads my posts will be moderated, whereas you rank higher/are more likeable and on the same thread your posts are allowed through unhindered). But for the most part, we're allowed to chat amongst ourselves and only see the mods appear should a post be reported.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: You get what you...

It is only the choices that we make, the actions that we engage in that makes the world what we want. We live in a world full of other people that are choosing and acting as they see fit.

Well said!

I do my best (most of the time) to model not only the behaviours and things I believe to be right, but to also show that I can live a happy life by them.

As I've said around here before, people have threatened me but I don't let that get to me (I won't go on a hunting trip with such people either of course, but I won't live in fear). Do what makes yourself happy, but try hard to not do what makes others sad (unless their 'sad' is demonstrably unreasonable). Try to win others over to your POV, but let them share their POV with you as well - you might learn something valuable.

Jesus said "treat others as you would have them treat you". Bill and Ted said "be excellent to each other". Either one works.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Why?

Good question. I didnt want to have only a sanitized version of the incident spoon fed to me by the media and the government.

I've dealt with things you hopefully cannot imagine. I've experienced some very nasty stuff and thankfully survived.

I see no reason to seek out images of any other's suffering. It will in no way change my experiences nor make me feel any better about them, and it certainly will not help them in any fashion. I've had enough pain in my own life without adding to it by witnessing other's troubles.

I grew up near Hawera. Some of my current friends are staff at Hawera Hospital, while at least one other was treated by Dr Amjad Hamid. I doubt I ever met the man himself although it is remotely possible, but he sounds like he was one hell of a great person. Last night I spent some time talking with a close childhood friend who is now mourning the loss of a work colleague and friend.

I could try to use that as some sort of excuse to see how Dr Hamid died, but I already know more than I would wish. I cannot see any way in which I or any one else would be helped by viewing any of this. I know more than enough about the circumstances of his death. I could watch it in high-def video, but that would be of no value to me nor would it show respect to the man himself, his family, his friends, or my friends.

I cannot see why someone would wish to watch it, nor to publicly admit to what is now classed as a crime under NZ law (you may be OK if you have not kept or distributed any copies, as it was probably not so classified when you viewed it).

Kiwi Silver badge

I have noticed similar things on Facebook before, and I have reported it to them, but they come back saying it does not go against their community standards.

NZ's chief censor has deemed the video to be "objectionable material". That makes possession or distribution of it a criminal offence, with a potential prison sentence for breaches. There is a similar charge in the US I expect, so grounds for extradition on criminal offences. Plus there is precedent for extraditions when the act is not a crime in either company.

There just needs to be a quiet reminder that, as the owners of the platform via which this illegal material is shared, they are liable to imprisonment if they don't try a bit harder.

Kiwi Silver badge

Given your creating an account just to post that trash, I have a feeling you weren't exactly much of an El Reg regular.

Door's over that way ->. Don't let it hit your backside on the way out.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Errr, censorship?

There is only one SINGLE reason that moderation isn't as affective as it ought to be: the almighty buck.

Moderation is hard. I've run services where we did full moderation, and you very quickly run into a problem where either you cut back the service or cut back the strings on moderation, eg acting on something that is reported rather than trying to vet every post before releasing it.

Even on this thread, I've had posts "awaiting moderation" for more than 5 hours.

it takes time to read each message posted to a site, even with a small site with a couple of dozen active users, moderation is difficult. If you consider it takes 30 seconds to decide on a message then a mere 200 messages is over an hour and a half's work. But many messages take more than a minute to decide on, and many sites get far more than 200 messages in a single day. If moderators are volunteering, then you have the problem that these people are also wanting to work, sleep, and have something of a social life. Or you can pay for professional moderators, at which point your site needs to be earning enough.

But we take FB for granted. How many messages are posted to groups on FB every day? How many people would that take to moderate that and vet everything? I believe some groups have their own moderators, but if you want a freely flowing conversation you need to have a fairly rapid flow of messages. If each message is delayed by a few hours, it slows down the rate of conversation and makes some conversations difficult (though such a slow-down may improve the content of the conversation and also reduce the amount of wasted verbiage flowing across the web (yes I know I probably contribute 90% of that on my own!).

Moderated sites struggle to keep people whereas free-post sites flourish, at least so long as the overall conversation is not so bad it drives people elsewhere.

I personally think making people sign up to a site, and blocking people who cross the line too often is the best way - with a mechanism to allow people to report things of concern and someone nearby to act on such concerns quickly. That can still take a lot of work, especially with borderline cases.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Your "nutter on a rampage" is China's "Tiananmen Square"

"I feel the moment we "clamp down on propaganda" we're no better than China or North Korea."

Well, you feel wrongly then. There is a difference between executing human rights campaigners and blocking ISIS beheading videos. If you cannot see this, your opinion isn't worth listening to.

You're right, there is a difference between the two.

However, the original sentiment still stands. Once we allow our governments to start clamping down on what they deem to be "bad propaganda" we can expect to be in the same boat as NK and maybe China are claimed to be (China appears to at least have a very decent QOL for much of its citizen vs NK, OTOH their propaganda arm may be more effective).

I'd love to know that the people who get off on what I consider bad could no longer get the material they like. I'm sure I'd somehow feel a little safer if I knew someone who is on the extremes of "far right" and the like could not get their hands on material that might 'set them off'.


I like material others dislike. I'm quite prone to seeking out and speaking out on Christian topics, and many would consider that 'evil' and I have had non-Christians saying that governments should perhaps lock us Christians up or even execute us. These people believe that my Christian views are bad and I should not be allowed to promote them.

I get the same from some circles within Christianity. I'm not straight therefore I should not be able to speak, as my "vile filth" may somehow turn their kids gay (the parents have much more of an influence!) or in some other way make people bad simply because I am quite 'pro gay-rights'.

We absolutely MUST defend "freedom of speech" as much as we are able. I know sometimes it lets bad things happen, but it also lets good things happen. I am willing to let the bad come in to keep the good. My being allowed to say what I believe is right comes with the price that you also are allowed to say what you believe is right.

It's not that long ago that I could've been arrested for the contents of this post, and I could've faced decades of confinement for it. I was barely in my teens when the laws were reformed, so I am old enough to remember what things were like, and the sacrifices that have been made to have this nation I enjoy.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Responsibility

Or they can just provide their own protection. Internal security forces can be a starting point.

I think you'll find the entire "internal security forces" of FB, Google and a few others pales even to NZ's Territorials. And lowly paid excessively fed "security guards" lack some of the training that even the least trained qualified soldier has. You might find a few "weekend warriors" in amongst that lot, but you'll find how quickly they flee when real bullets start flying.

I think you'll also find MOST of the "internal security forces" will be far more loyal to their country than they will be to the corporation, regardless of how much money is offered.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Responsibility

"You do realise that there are concepts such as "international law" and many countries have treaties where if you commit a crime in one place then flee to another, you can still be arrested and returned to the land where you committed the crime? Especially if your actions are illegal in both places."

Which ONLY applies if said country RATIFIES the treaty. A sovereign business would NOT be party to said treaties. And there ARE countries that will refuse to extradite for various reasons (such as being HOSTILE to the other country).

Sure. Except for the most part these sorts of treaties are ratified. And if a "sovereign business" wished to have any claim to such "sovereignty" they would need to negotiate several such treaties, and they'd need to have somewhere to extradite people to. You seem to forget that even if Zuck decided to declare FB a "sovereign business" not subject to other country's laws, he still has to live somewhere. And oh damn, he's on US soil and subject to the laws of the state he lives in. He could try to fly to another country, or flee to their embassy, but he might find it hard proving FB is a "sovereign business" and he is some sort of "rightful ruler" when he is cowering behind another's walls.

You may claim to rule, but unless you're able to back up that rule with force when necessary, you don't rule anything but your own mind.

"As to companies declaring "their own sovereignty", perhaps you can point us to one having successfully done this?"

Not yet, but I can see it as the next logical step. All it would take is enough power to declare their own self-determination AND defend that self-determination in the face of war. That's how the US came to be over 200 years ago if you'll recall.

Ah yes, a well-armed and well-provisioned land with a decent number of people available beat a perhaps better armed and trained but less well-provisioned and less-peopled force on their home soil. Anyone with an ounce of logic or knowledge of military history will tell you a toddler with a hay fork on his own land beats a tank from a foreign army a great deal of the time (slight exaggeration). People fighting for their homes and their famiies are a lot more motivated to win than soldiers fighting in another land, especially when said soldiers are not fully convinced they're doing the right thing or are not really motivated to fight.

But that still does not cover the issue of this mythical "sovereign business", which has to build a force strong enough to maintain it's position while not giving the government of the land a reason to pay a little more attention to them. Give the government cause to believe you're raising arms that may be used against them, and you'll find out very quickly just how much force they can bring to bear and how little you have. Don't forget you not only have the government but the people of the nation, and any friendly nation to deal with. People who love their country aren't going to let some upstart come in and try to take over.

Even Trump's business has failed the test of sovereignty, and he's the US prez with veto powers available to him! He's considered the "commander in cheif" of the entire US military, and yet he does not have the power to get his desires.

As for the drug, it's called Reality.

I think you'd have a very strong case for taking your dealer to the advertising standards authority.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: El Reg follows common sense!

Cremation, then the ashes dropped into a sewer or an old mine shaft etc

I should clarify. In many cases there have been efforts to get the remains of a deceased nasty person. By dumping them in such a manner, the chance of such an act is limited only to a short window of time. By not announcing that this 'hero' has died until some time later, the chances of the dumping being intercepted by nutters is removed to almost 0.

I use the term 'hero' because, to some, he will be. I myself consider the man an utter coward. He went against an unarmed group and murdered women and children. Little children to young to even have started school.

If you consider this person a hero, this man whose greatest act is the murder of babies, then that is your choice, but know that the majority of the world's population will consider him a worthless coward, and we will treat you with the respect you deserve.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: Ambiguity; not in this case.

Murder is not black and white?

Actually while I think you're probably mis-reading him, "murder" is not black & white. A simple example is that in the US you can shoot someone dead for simply stepping onto your property, whereas in much of the rest of the world such an act would get you a murder conviction and a life sentence. OTOH, in most of the world "murder" requires an intent to kill, whereas I've known of a couple of cases of people being charged with such for things that have caused the death of another where the person was not intending the other party be killed, or even harmed.

Murder should simply be that you intended the other person to die. If they die as a result of your defending another and you were trying to use the minimum force then that's not murder, but if someone is verbally harassing, and even threatening, your wife and kids and you choose to kill them when there were other options available to you, then that is murder. But that is not always how things are defined.

[1]I have previously gone in to things considered dangerous to help others, but I don't claim anything heroic as I believed I could help, that I could get out unharmed and did not see any risk to myself.

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: What Register?!?

Now to really piss some of you off, what if just 10% of those people in the church had guns?

A lot more people would be dead. If 10% of the people in the mosque had guns, then there'd be at least that many others in the rest of the population, many of whom would've rushed to the scene in their desire to a) be heroes and b) kill someone (after all, people in the gun nut lands always go on about their "stand your ground" laws and often threaten people with gun violence over utterly trivial things!).

This is a city that has been known to have issues with racist groups and extreme right-wing groups. You think arming such groups would be a good idea?

Lets just say those 10% (another 50 or so people, who BTW unlike many who falsely claim to be 'christian' actually follow peaceful beliefs[1]) actually drew their weapons and took out the gunman. What do you think would've happened when they started to go outside to see if another person was nearby? All these gun nuts seeing a bunch of Moslems coming out of a mosque carrying guns? Talk about stupidity!

BTW, Paris and many many other events has shown that you do not need a gun to kill a lot of people, or to kill anyone for that matter. A few people running around with knives can cause a lot of pain, and someone with a truck and a busy pedestrian area can very quickly kill or hurt a lot of people. I guess we should all go out and buy trucks.

[1]Jesus had entire legions of angels awaiting His command, yet He never once employed those forces against people. Do you think He would've promoted gun violence like so many so-called "christians" do in the US?

They're BAAACK: Windows 10 nagware team loads trebuchet with annoying reminders to GTFO Windows 7

Kiwi Silver badge

Re: At Timmy B, re: Win10 vs GDPR.

There is your problem - I've read lots and lots of the GDPR documentation. I've had to - it's part of my job.

You're not doing your job very well then.

But the GDPR is irrelevant anyway. It is the laws of my land I am interested in, and W10's data collection completely falls foul of that.

Especially the collecting the contents of documents. I have not given my Dr nor any government depts permission to pass such information on. Furthermore, under the same laws they MUST be able to present me with a copy of ALL data relating to me that has been passed on regardless of whether or not it ID's me. They must be able to tell me who will have access to that data (at least to the organisational/company level, not necessarily specific individuals).

I haven't read much at all on the European law, but if it is stronger than our laws you're failing your clients.

Assuming of course you're something more than a MS troll, and somehow I greatly doubt that.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019