dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
93
« RE: I say Bullshit!Child Porn »
This is a sub-selection from Good

technick
Premium Member
join:2000-12-16
Wheat Ridge, CO

technick to N3OGH

Premium Member

to N3OGH

Re: Good

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.

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

3 recommendations

N3OGH

Premium Member

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...
yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON

3 recommendations

yabos

Member

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 Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

1 recommendation

hayabusa3303 to N3OGH

Premium Member

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.

Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium Member
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA

2 recommendations

Combat Chuck to N3OGH

Premium Member

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.
bigjimc
join:2003-04-21
Middleboro, MA

bigjimc to N3OGH

Member

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.
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
Cockeysville, MD

1 recommendation

bi0tech to N3OGH

Member

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 ··· 857.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 Member
join:2002-04-11
Washington, DC

Hel to N3OGH

Premium Member

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.

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

1 edit

N3OGH to bi0tech

Premium Member

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.

Qumahlin
Never Enough Time
MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state

1 edit

3 recommendations

Qumahlin

MVM

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

N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium Member
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs

N3OGH

Premium Member

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.....

rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium Member
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA

rtcy to bigjimc

Premium Member

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.
Nanaki (banned)
aka novaflare. pull punches? Na
join:2002-01-24
Akron, OH

Nanaki (banned) to hayabusa3303

Member

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.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303 to rtcy

Premium Member

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.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to rtcy

Premium Member

to rtcy
said by rtcy:

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.
...and when evidence later comes and exonerates them, do we apologize to the body?
Thaler

1 recommendation

Thaler to Nanaki

Premium Member

to Nanaki
said by Nanaki:

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
...and it's reasons like this I'm glad as hell you have nothing to do with the justice system.

rtcy
FACTS only please
Premium Member
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA

rtcy

Premium Member

said by Thaler:

said by Nanaki:

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
...and it's reasons like this I'm glad as hell you have nothing to do with the justice system.
I was careful to qualify my comments with *proven* with today's DNA technology getting better every day, it's easier to get DNA evidence of a anyone that has been with a child, I also know thre will be times when such is not possible, that's when *reasonable doubt* comes into play.

hope I've cleared my position, and as Gene Hackman said in the movie " yes SIR by all means NUKE those bastards" uhh molesters

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to N3OGH

Premium Member

to N3OGH
said by N3OGH:

Sorry, but when it comes to kid touchers, I've got ZERO sympathy. I just can't find it...
A scorched-earth policy regarding "OMG, think of the children!"...whatever. While we're in the ballpark of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, why not just take all the kids...and chuck 'em into a woodchipper. Nobody's gonna touch that again, I guarantee.

Sound stupid? Yeah. Because you're bastardizing anything and everything that could be used in the name of child photography and exploitation. Hell, we best be banning computers altogether since pervs can save stuff to it!

jays2345
join:2006-05-16
va.

jays2345 to Qumahlin

Member

to Qumahlin
AMEN!!!!!!
NDPTAL85
join:2002-01-23
Boston, MA

1 recommendation

NDPTAL85 to N3OGH

Member

to N3OGH
I have two points to make to you.

1. You are getting way too emotional in your crusade against the kp pervs.

2. A system based on anonymity is pointless if it doesn't make EVERYONE anonymous. If one party can be tracked, then all parties can be tracked. Arguments against kp don't change that. If you can track down the kp pervs then the same methods/programs/devices can be used to track down political dissidents, file traders, and those people who like Joanie and Chachi. »www.sitcomsonline.com/jo ··· chi.html

jap
Premium Member
join:2003-08-10
038xx

jap

Premium Member

said by NDPTAL85:

You are getting way too emotional in your crusade against the kp pervs.
You nailed it. Policy making is totally ineffective, expensive, and crippling when emotional, un-equivocated thinking underlies it. Unfortunately, our media-saturated campaign process shuns the wonks we need and elects/funds sound & image bites engineered to exploit emotions.

Thaler
Premium Member
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA

Thaler to rtcy

Premium Member

to rtcy
said by rtcy:

I was careful to qualify my comments with *proven* with today's DNA technology getting better every day, it's easier to get DNA evidence of a anyone that has been with a child, I also know thre will be times when such is not possible, that's when *reasonable doubt* comes into play.
So, again, should a test be conducted incorrectly, or evidence tampered with to give a false positive on a DNA test read, then it should be OK to do whatever with the suspect/inmate then?

That's the thing with technology. Nomatter how good we make, it, there's always a human factor involved with things. Now, if you're willing to sacrifice those few falsely incarcerated as simply a by-product of "streamlining efficiency", then that's (again) an opinion which makes me glad as hell you have nothing to do with the justice system.

Just keep in mind, an "open and shut" case presented in court today could very well be the "reasonable doubt" case of tomorrow.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to N3OGH

Member

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.
Knowledge is knowledge. Its just a stream of letters. If I wrote a book about raping and murdering kids, did I rape and murder a kid? No. All information is good, regardless of content, and it has every right to be duplicated as any other content. Its upto the receiver to decide if they want to read/view/believe in it. If you have problems with how its made, go do something about WHEN its made. How do you know someone didnt create it in Photoshop?

Your not a reader of it, you have no rights to block people from reading it. Its the readers right to read it. Begin on kiddie porn, and it turns into "national loyalty". Its a slippery slope of ice. What if someone said Christianity is wrong(Im guessing your religion, but feel free to put your own in), would you want anonymity be avaible?
« RE: I say Bullshit!Child Porn »
This is a sub-selection from Good