N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | reply to rtcy
Re: Good
So let me get this straight. You SUPPORT child pornography on the internet?
Just looking for clarification....
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! |
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA
| said by N3OGH  :So let me get this straight. You SUPPORT child pornography on the internet? Just looking for clarification.... I don't support child pornography and I don't support the policing or censorship of Tor either. Tor was not designed to be censored or policed, it was designed to maintain the small bit of anonymity that is hard to find on the Internet today.
What people do with that anonymity, is there business.
--
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising everytime we fall." - Confucius
Bellsouth Free Since 10/05 - To Hell With Bellsouth
Advocatus Diaboli
Streamfire.net |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Kansas City, MO
clubs: | reply to N3OGH
It doesn't make sense to censor a "free", anonymous network. |
|
rtcy
RTCY
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
 ·Verizon FIOS
edit:
March 12th, @01:10PM
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :So let me get this straight. You SUPPORT child pornography on the internet? Just looking for clarification.... let me clarify 
BBR seems full of people with NO reading comprehension, it's a statement on our lack of education in this country.
where do you see me defending any kind of porn?
I simply defend our rights to freedom of speech. you and I will NEVER stop dishonest/ SOULless people by censorship.
I also *understand* how TOR works, it was designed so that anyone anywhere in the world can send a email anonymously without fear of retaliation. the whole way the servers work is to pass the information *without* examination of the contents. about all you could do would be to limit the size of the individual content to say 50 bytes, that would put a hurt in *most* photos being sent, but even that can be circumbented.
so what would do you do?
would you also kill ALL online forums like this one, since those bastards also approach kids on them?
would you close ALL schools down, since lots of kids can be found in one easy place?
how about WE change the laws to a quick EXECUTION of the bastards once PROVEN to be child abusers in a open place, I AM ALL for that, but leave the freedoms that the rest of us want alone. We need a backbone (our society) to actually execute(laws in the books) ALL rapist and murderers, like it or not REAL fear works, and if these people KNEW what was coming it would lessen the abuse but not eliminate it.
do a online search for where you live and see how many child molesters live nearby to you, and many right near schools!
it will scare the S*iT out of you, I have a 5 year old granddaughter and a 7 year old son, and I HAVE to drive them to school because so many live nearby, my daughter now 26 was "asked" by one of these bastards into his car, I had her trained well and she screamed and ran, later the police told me that they had had the same description of the car given to them before by other parents, but the guy was not caught (to my knowledge)(and believe me I patrolled around for him) but after that all my kids went back in the car no matter how much they asked to go with their friends.
I believe in my constitution, and will always defend it, before anything else, I also believe in the law and not in mob rule. lets enforce the laws, lets follow through and kill those that need killing. if God is doing nothing about the millions dying in Africa, he won't mind a couple of thousands more that are in jails for killing innocent people.
did I clarify that for you  |
|
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to technick
So, if people download photographs that children had to be exploited sexually to produce, you're saying you're OK with that?
It's one thing to download a movie or a song with with your "anonymity". It's another thing to support the sexual exploitation of children by using your "anonymity" to download pictures of child pornography.
I'm not one of these "won't someone think of the children" people that thinks everything should be censored and that Janet Jackson's boob flopping out at the Super Bowl (Can I say Super Bowl without the express written permission of the NFL? ) But we're not talking about a victimless crime here. Were talking about supporting the "anonymity" of people who take pictures children, some as young toddlers, engaged in actual sex acts with full grown adults.
Sorry fella, no way I can justify that. No rationale you can throw at me, no high minded notion of what someones "privacy" is worth can justify it.
I've had to look at some of this stuff in the course of my work. I've seen some of the most disgusting, reprehensible, and criminal things done to kids to produce this shit. It's seared into my mind, and just the thought of it right now makes me physically ill.
There are, IMHO 2 kinds of people in the world. 1: The sickos that are into this stuff, and get off on it, AND 2: Everyone else.
I'm not directing any kind of attack at you personally, but if you had actually seen some of the shit that's out there, I think you might see things differently. I'm probably one of the few people here than can admit they've seen it and not face prosecution, as it was in the course of conducting an arrest and investigation.
Sorry, but when it comes to kid touchers, I've got ZERO sympathy. I just can't find it...
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! |
|
yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON
| If you can track the origins of the kiddie porn then you can track anything on the network and therefore it's useless for being anonymous. Not that stopping kiddie porn is bad but you really think that it's going to stop people from sharing it by censoring Tor? It's the same with piracy. People will find a way like they always have. |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs:
·AT&T Southeast
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·QuantumVoice
·ViaTalk
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :So, if people download photographs that children had to be exploited sexually to produce, you're saying you're OK with that? It's one thing to download a movie or a song with with your "anonymity". It's another thing to support the sexual exploitation of children by using your "anonymity" to download pictures of child pornography. I'm not one of these "won't someone think of the children" people that thinks everything should be censored and that Janet Jackson's boob flopping out at the Super Bowl (Can I say Super Bowl without the express written permission of the NFL? ) But we're not talking about a victimless crime here. Were talking about supporting the "anonymity" of people who take pictures children, some as young toddlers, engaged in actual sex acts with full grown adults. Sorry fella, no way I can justify that. No rationale you can throw at me, no high minded notion of what someones "privacy" is worth can justify it. I've had to look at some of this stuff in the course of my work. I've seen some of the most disgusting, reprehensible, and criminal things done to kids to produce this shit. It's seared into my mind, and just the thought of it right now makes me physically ill. There are, IMHO 2 kinds of people in the world. 1: The sickos that are into this stuff, and get off on it, AND 2: Everyone else. I'm not directing any kind of attack at you personally, but if you had actually seen some of the shit that's out there, I think you might see things differently. I'm probably one of the few people here than can admit they've seen it and not face prosecution, as it was in the course of conducting an arrest and investigation. Sorry, but when it comes to kid touchers, I've got ZERO sympathy. I just can't find it... I would like to shake your hand well said. |
|
AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :So let me get this straight. You SUPPORT child pornography on the internet? Just looking for clarification.... No...Tor was developed to be a way around censorship and retain anonymity. "Hacking" a means of censorship into Tor (good natured or no) simply defeats the purpose of using the program.
Hell, I'm sure child porn has been widely peddled by the unknowing postal workers of America. Should their jobs be axed simply because a select few were unknowingly contributing to a degenerate practice?  |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :So, if people download photographs that children had to be exploited sexually to produce, you're saying you're OK with that? No, I don't think anyone is saying that. The problem is you cannot have anonymity and still be able to limit what is shared by the network; it just won't work and defeats the purpose of TOR altogether.
While child pornography is abhorrent you cannot go blaming those with legitimate reasons to use TOR for members who commit crimes using it. If there were a way to track only those sharing child porn without sacrificing the anonymity of everyone else you'd have a point, but the reality is there isn't and there never will be.
Decisions and judgements based on solely on emotions are almost always bad, and that's exactly what you're doing in this case, making a judgement call based on your anger towards those who participate in child porn. What you need to do is take a step back and decide if eliminating everyone's anonymity is ultimately worth it to catch a small group of people, and at what point does trampling everyone else become a bad thing; after all we could nuke New York City and eliminate almost all the child porn industry in New York City at the loss of millions of innocents. I think we can all agree that that would be a bit overkill.
--
Revolution!!!... or some such nonsense. |
|
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to N3OGH
I agree....I saw the movie 8MM and I am told by a friend the the DA's office that that was nothing compared with the sick crap that these people are doing.
Look at the FBI Top 10 Fugitives.
»www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm
Richard Gold is the biggest name on the list.
Find em, Arrest em, Prosecute em, put em in jail and let the cruel and unusual punishment begin. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to AquaBlaze
said by AquaBlaze :Hell, I'm sure child porn has been widely peddled by the unknowing postal workers of America. Should their jobs be axed simply because a select few were unknowingly contributing to a degenerate practice? In addition to those Postal Workers who just unknowingly deliver the Porn (which was placed into the system for them to deliver), you have one of the largest Porn Rings in the world by the name of the US Postal Service Postal Inspectors Division and the US Printing Office. One of their jobs is to Print [USPO] and Mail [USPS] Porn as part of so called "Sting" Operations. Admittedly, they do not CREATE the original images, only reproduce and recycle those that they own due to prior sting operations. OTOH, they DO distribute it so should their jobs also be axed?
Note that just like with Tor, this is only a small part of the job of the USPS Postal Inspectors and the output of the USPO but if you take the stance of "Tor is being used for this bad activity, no matter how small a part, and thus the Tor must be eliminated" this also applies to the USPS and USPO.
No matter what item you select, you are going to find those who use it for some activity that is illegal but just because it CAN be so used, this does not justify banning the item. This is just as logical as saying "Ban Automobiles" just because they have-been/can-be used as "Get Away Cars" in conjunction to Bank Robberies. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
·Comcast
| reply to N3OGH
"Sorry fella, no way I can justify that. No rationale you can throw at me, no high minded notion of what someones "privacy" is worth can justify it."
Yeah why not intertwine two completely different issues and use one as a ridiculous rationale to impair the other. Makes sense right, we don't want those [insert random inflammatory category here] to be free from prosecution. Are you saying you support those [insert random inflammatory category here]? How can you justify keeping a free and open internet while people like [insert random inflammatory category] are running around on the net?
Point being that entire argument has more flaws than on target points. How about we think about reality and how things really come into play.
Look at the case in florida where theres a good chance a couple of young people getting a little frisky are gonna get their lives messed up for this exact line of thinking: »news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6157857.html
Has anyone not seen Bush's wonderful campaign against terror? Or the FBI warrantless tapping of anything under the sun, in pursuit of phantom terrorist or worse? Replace terrorist with pedophile/drug dealer/anything else that raises your righteous indignation and we lose another freedom.
How do you deal with jurisdictional problems? Not every country uniformly enforces the same laws, I would be willing to wager heavily that not every country enforces the same age distinction between child and adult.
Fear does not justify impairing other rights. Damn people learn from the constitution for once. |
|
Hel
Goddess Of My Own Little Universe
Premium
join:2002-04-11
Washington, DC
clubs:
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :So, if people download photographs that children had to be exploited sexually to produce, you're saying you're OK with that? I think you're missing the point being made, and I suspect you're missing it on purpose to be argumentative. But just in case you're genuinely not following...
No one is supporting child porn. What IS being said is that taking one step to block child porn, makes it that much easier and more likely for another step to be taken, to block whatever someone else finds objectionable. Fundie Xian and don't want people reading things critical of xians? Same tech used to block child porn can be used to block that. Your favored political candidate got some skeletons in the closet? Same tech used to block child porn can be used to block the websites exposing those secrets. And on and on and on, for every single thing anyone on the planet finds objectionable.
--
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."-Sinclair Lewis 1885-1951 |
|
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
edit:
March 12th, @04:02PM
| reply to bi0tech
Dude I'm not talking about stuff like that.
I'm talking about clear cut disgusting acts of sexual exploitation.
MOD'S HEADS UP, I'M FLAGGING MY OWN POST IN CASE IT WILL CAUSE TROUBLE.
I'm cleaning this up as best I can so the posts stays..
The one that sticks in my mind the most is a close up of a man's "junk" engaged in a certain act with the "most intimate" of feminine areas.
The female involved appears to be between the ages of 8 and 10. The picture is titled "Daddy's little girl's first time should be with daddy."
OK, defend that....
Edit. Crap you can't flag your own posts. Someone flag this so a mod looks at it ASAP.
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! |
|
thender
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :So let me get this straight. You SUPPORT child pornography on the internet? Just looking for clarification.... I'm going to take a wild guess.
I think he meant that he doesn't want to see child porn on the web, but that he was afraid the people finding child pornographers may overstep their bounds and begin either
a) Using such methods against smaller "crimes".
b) Start accusing dead people/2 year olds(see: MPAA, RIAA) of downloading child porn.
I'm all for getting child porn off the web, but it's how you're doing it that matters. Even if you take child porn off the internet, that doesn't mean bad things of that type will stop happening, nor does it mean that very same child porn film will stop being distributed. I am for things that get child porn off the internet, but I don't think it's worth using methods where 1 in 10 interrogated are guilty to get one extra flick off the net.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
Premium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
West Chester, PA
edit:
March 12th, @08:39PM
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :Dude I'm not talking about stuff like that. I'm talking about clear cut disgusting acts of sexual exploitation. MOD'S HEADS UP, I'M FLAGGING MY OWN POST IN CASE IT WILL CAUSE TROUBLE. I'm cleaning this up as best I can so the posts stays.. The one that sticks in my mind the most is a close up of a man's "junk" engaged in a certain act with the "most intimate" of feminine areas. The female involved appears to be between the ages of 8 and 10. The picture is titled "Daddy's little girl's first time should be with daddy." OK, defend that.... Edit. Crap you can't flag your own posts. Someone flag this so a mod looks at it ASAP. Your an idiot. Not a single person in this thread is trying to defend it. Your missing the whole point. The point is that by exposing the data sources, your taking a network whose SOLE PURPOSE IS ANONYMITY and taking the anonymity out of it! Tor doing this will just mean less legitimate security conscious people using tor. Noone is going to use a ANONYMOUS network who now says "Well...some things you shouldn't be anonymous for" How long is it before they decide just what else they deem is bad and want to expost
I mean hell you can abuse a child in your bedroom, why don't we remove your curtains?
I can take a sexually explicit photo of a child with a camera...so lets just install chips in all the cameras that recognize naked children and automatically blur them out...better yet, lets just get rid of cameras all together!
Not to mention this will do nothing to stop child pornography. Fetishes no matter how outright disgusting they are always have followers and those people will always find a way to meet, share, etc, etc.
But, once again, if you think ANYONE in this thread is defending child pornongraphy then you are incapable of reading
--
Forum Posts:7500 |
|
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Yeah I'm an idiot, the personal attacks go a long way..
I'm all for the anonymity of whistle blowers and journalists...
If a private concern wants to regulate themselves I'm all for it. If the users don't like it, they can find another service. It's not like the government is stepping in and mandating they do ANYTHING.
I guess my idiot self should go back to licking boogers off the windows of the short bus.
What a jackass.....
--
FCC, PLEASE KILL THE MERGER BEFORE THE MERGER KILLS SATRAD! |
|
rtcy
RTCY
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to bigjimc
said by bigjimc :Find em, Arrest em, Prosecute em, put em in jail and let the cruel and unusual punishment begin. If for one minute people had the guts and logic to disregard what was put in their heads when they were kids about(religion), and were just logical about it, they would come to the conclusion that killers and rapist should be shot dead the next day after proven prosecution. we would all be better off, and use those taxes to feeding the poor around the world. |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| reply to hayabusa3303
said by hayabusa3303 :said by N3OGH :So, if people download photographs that children had to be exploited sexually to produce, you're saying you're OK with that? It's one thing to download a movie or a song with with your "anonymity". It's another thing to support the sexual exploitation of children by using your "anonymity" to download pictures of child pornography. I'm not one of these "won't someone think of the children" people that thinks everything should be censored and that Janet Jackson's boob flopping out at the Super Bowl (Can I say Super Bowl without the express written permission of the NFL? ) But we're not talking about a victimless crime here. Were talking about supporting the "anonymity" of people who take pictures children, some as young toddlers, engaged in actual sex acts with full grown adults. Sorry fella, no way I can justify that. No rationale you can throw at me, no high minded notion of what someones "privacy" is worth can justify it. I've had to look at some of this stuff in the course of my work. I've seen some of the most disgusting, reprehensible, and criminal things done to kids to produce this shit. It's seared into my mind, and just the thought of it right now makes me physically ill. There are, IMHO 2 kinds of people in the world. 1: The sickos that are into this stuff, and get off on it, AND 2: Everyone else. I'm not directing any kind of attack at you personally, but if you had actually seen some of the shit that's out there, I think you might see things differently. I'm probably one of the few people here than can admit they've seen it and not face prosecution, as it was in the course of conducting an arrest and investigation. Sorry, but when it comes to kid touchers, I've got ZERO sympathy. I just can't find it... I would like to shake your hand well said. Id like to have had 5 minutes with the perp in the interigation room with my knife on my side. Snip snip snip plop plop plop get the idea
Anonimity on the itnernet is a load of crap any how. Dont think for one secound that tor keeps your isp from seeign where you go it does not. They may not be able to see what your downloading there do to encryption but they can see the http or https url you went to. Tor is no more than a proxy. If you want to see this for your self set up a proxy with encryption right before your modem and then one right before your router (or after) That is not encrypted. Now the proxy after the one right before your modem is your tor stand in. The one after that and before your pc your browesing with is your isps modem or their own proxy. Now visit a few https sites with good strong encryption and valid certs. Now finally check the logs in the proxy just before your pc.
What you will see is the https web site you went to.
This is the same thing your isp can see as they are your first hop after your modem. While you can bypass proxies your isp uses with another proxy you can not bypass their routers. Routers all have logging capabilities these routers will log url requests that are coming and going through them. So regardless of the number of hops tor gives you your isp can still infact see this.
The reason why tor allows you to bypass url etc restrictions your isp imposes is simple. All isps known at this time use proxies to filter url requests. Now tor like any proxy is done via ip so sense it would be impossible to filter out 1000s of ips to block them as a isp has no idea where or what those ips are they do not block on a ip by ip basis. If tor on the other hand used tor.someclient.com instead a isp could block tor with a simple tor.*.* entry.
--
Evil does exist and it has a face to often that face is one that should look on their child with love in their eyes.
Instead only hate exists in those eyes. |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs:
·AT&T Southeast
·RoadRunner Cable
·QuantumVoice
·ViaTalk
| reply to rtcy
said by rtcy :said by bigjimc :Find em, Arrest em, Prosecute em, put em in jail and let the cruel and unusual punishment begin. we would all be better off, and use those taxes to feeding the poor around the world. That would make the governments job TOO easy then. |
|
