Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be 'For' Child Porn, Says Legislator (Canada)

[DamianTV]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/14/1832205/against-online-surveillance-you-must-be-for-child-porn-says-legislator


"Following up on yesterday's story about the Canadian government's internet surveillance legislation, one of the bill's proponents is now accusing those who oppose it of standing with child pornographers. Those against the legislation include: Law professor Michael Geist, Open Media, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Council of Canadians and many others. 'Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told a Liberal MP he could either stand with the government or "with the child pornographers" prowling online.' Toews is enjoying his Parliamentary Privilege, which grants him the freedom to say pretty much anything he wants without fear of a slander suit."

[bolil]

Damn, they got me... Or perhaps being against online surveillance might indicate an inclination to support the freedom of speech... I guess if your for drug prohibition your for the suffering of cancer patients too. Are you for the separation of church and state? Must mean your all about persecution.

[dannno]

I'm pretty sure that about 98% of what is considered 'child pornography' are actually teenagers, not children, and that 98% of those who view this so-called "child pornography" are also teenagers who are curious about what girls their own age look like. Of course it is near impossible to be verified because some 19 year olds look 15 and some 15 year olds look 19. I think the whole child pornography thing is overblown and just used by government in order to intrude in on our personal lives.

Even if there is widespread actual child pornography available, I'd rather those who are attracted to children have pictures to look at to quell their appetite rather than hurting more children. Child porn is evidence of a horrible crime and can be used to prosecute individuals who abuse children. Knowingly supporting a child abuser by paying for child pornography could certainly be considered a crime. However, making mere possession of child porn an offense is very dangerous because it can easily be planted on people's computers without their knowledge making it extremely easy for someone to take revenge or otherwise.

[cheapseats]

The stakes are higher, but it is the same illogic behind hissing PRO ABORTION at those who are PRO CHOICE.

If yer not with us (right down the line, lockstep), yer agin' us.

[Bruno]

All politicians should be open to random police searches of their homes at any time of day or night, to prove they are not child predators. Any resistance will be seen as that individual being a proponent, supporter, and contributor to child pornography.

[pacelli]

I'm against child porn as well as abuse + neglect for that matter.

And, I am also against L.E.-initiated child porn distribution schemes.

[pacelli]

All politicians should be open to random police searches of their homes at any time of day or night, to prove they are not child predators. Any resistance will be seen as that individual being a proponent, supporter, and contributor to child pornography.

I agree but I think it should be a state right issue.

[LibForestPaul]

All politicians should be open to random police searches of their homes at any time of day or night, to prove they are not child predators. Any resistance will be seen as that individual being a proponent, supporter, and contributor to child pornography.
And random drug tests.

[awake]

This is the most brain dead attempt at Demagoging I have ever witnessed. It reminds me of the simpleton speech by G.W. Bush when he spouted, "either you are with us, or you're with the terrorists". Same tactic actually.

Laws like this are almost never used for their stated urgent reason, in other words, these powers will be abused to no end. You can count on it. Hell, the ruling party can listen in on all its competition and sleep at night with no worries that it might be against the law.

Canada is infected with "Neocons" as well...Sad really.

Ever wonder what the world would be like if it were ruled by children? Wonder no longer.

[Sullivan*]

I'm pretty sure that about 98% of what is considered 'child pornography' are actually teenagers, not children, and that 98% of those who view this so-called "child pornography" are also teenagers who are curious about what girls their own age look like. Of course it is near impossible to be verified because some 19 year olds look 15 and some 15 year olds look 19. I think the whole child pornography thing is overblown and just used by government in order to intrude in on our personal lives.

Even if there is widespread actual child pornography available, I'd rather those who are attracted to children have pictures to look at to quell their appetite rather than hurting more children. Child porn is evidence of a horrible crime and can be used to prosecute individuals who abuse children. Knowingly supporting a child abuser by paying for child pornography could certainly be considered a crime. However, making mere possession of child porn an offense is very dangerous because it can easily be planted on people's computers without their knowledge making it extremely easy for someone to take revenge or otherwise.
I think I disagree on this count. I think the fact that knowing there's a market for this stuff will make it more widespread, and the fact that someone might indulge in it is not innocuous. I have nothing to back up my argument besides my own reasoning, but it seems to me that there is a possibility that certain persons who might view this type of material may be triggered into a more offensive behavior.

And just to add a dislcaimer: no I'm not arguing that we should censor or monitor the internet. I'm conflicted, on one hand we have to protect the right of our countrymen and ourselves to speak freely, but on the other child pornography is not something that we should condone in any fashion.

[onlyrp]

Why is that a bad assumption? Who else is hiding anything shameful and criminal

[dannno]

I think I disagree on this count. I think the fact that knowing there's a market for this stuff will make it more widespread, and the fact that someone might indulge in it is not innocuous. I have nothing to back up my argument besides my own reasoning, but it seems to me that there is a possibility that certain persons who might view this type of material may be triggered into a more offensive behavior.

What is more offensive than putting children having sex up for exposé?

Anyways, we have seen that instances of rape have gone down dramatically as access to pornography has gone up. Pornography does not increase the sex drive, it helps to quell it and it helps men control their urges.

The same goes for child predators. Most people aren't attracted to children, they are disgusted by it, and there is no evidence having this material out there increases the desire for people to abuse children.

The goal is to decrease the amount of children who are abused. If a guy sitting in his basement is able to quell his sex drive by looking at pics of kids who have already been abused, looking at these pictures does not cause or support child abuse financially or otherwise, and this helps prevent kids in the future from being abused, then I think that is a net gain.

Not to mention, you really can't ignore how easy it would be to frame someone by placing child pornography on their computer. The law just isn't practical.



but on the other child pornography is not something that we should condone in any fashion.

Of course not, and we should put people in jail who abuse children.. but that doesn't mean you have to put people in jail who have never abused a child or hurt anybody.

[dannno]

Why is that a bad assumption? Who else is hiding anything shameful and criminal

So you are for online surveillance?

[NidStyles]

Why is that a bad assumption? Who else is hiding anything shameful and criminal

All assumptions are bad, because it's pure conjecture without proof.

Why is it your business what I may be hiding on my PC? Who are you or anyone else for that matter to say what I can and not have on my PC?

[onlyrp]

All assumptions are bad, because it's pure conjecture without proof.

Why is it your business what I may be hiding on my PC? Who are you or anyone else for that matter to say what I can and not have on my PC?

Exactly, who are we to tell child pornographers, hackers, pirates what they can't have on their computers, or in their homes for the matter?

[NidStyles]

Exactly, who are we to tell child pornographers, hackers, pirates what they can't have on their computers, or in their homes for the matter?

There you go making assumptions again.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

We have our own version of this in America, called Lamar Smith. We need to support Sheriff Richard Mack and oust him!

[onlyrp]

There you go making assumptions again.

I didn't need to make assumptions this time, I was asking if it was or should be, criminal to have stuff on your computer.

[dannno]

Exactly, who are we to tell child pornographers, hackers, pirates what they can't have on their computers, or in their homes for the matter?

How does having something on your computer hurt anybody?

[Bruno]

I didn't need to make assumptions this time, I was asking if it was or should be, criminal to have stuff on your computer.

That doesn't translate into the right to see people's computers without reasonable suspicion.

[onlyrp]

That doesn't translate into the right to see people's computers without reasonable suspicion.

so you believe you have a right to tell people what they can have on their computer? I understand it doesnt mean spy on them without reasonable suspicion and without their permission, but have you any problem criminalizing computer content?

[youngbuck]

It's the same ol' fallacious thinking akin to: "You're against the war? You must be Al-Qaeda."

[DamianTV]

Corrolation does not equal causation.

[bolil]

This is all ridiculous. For those of you that condone that the state should "monitor the internet to protect children" let me ask you why you put any faith in the states actual interest in protecting children when much of what they do SPECIFICALLY targets kids? I'm talking about public educ(indoctrin)ation, vaporized brown children, drug laws that put teens in jail for weed, anyone please feel free to add to this list.

Child pornography is nothing more than the memory of one the most VILE fucking acts we humans can conceive of. But it is just the memory of a crime. If you want to fight the crime, find the perpetrators... that is the people that are present when the memory is recorded. Find them, arrest them, prosecute them, if found guilty out them in prison until the violated children are old enough to a) forgive them (violator remains in prison) or b) personally feed them a high velocity lead sandwich. call it solved? Seeing as many would object to paying taxes that would pay for their prison experience (and therefore should not have their money stolen to do so), I am supposing it wouldn't be all that pleasant of a prison experience. More like starvation permeated by bouts of diphtheria.

Personally I would like to say: Find the perpetrators and save time by executing them immediately after trial, if found guilty. Except that I believe it would be better for the victims to forgive or administer punishment themselves.

[cheapseats]

so you believe you have a right to tell people what they can have on their computer?

Maybe I am wrong about YOU, feel free to say so. MAYBE my Government's CLEAR paranoia is causing me to see Bogeymen.

The wisdom of the Ages and Sages is that VICES are more infectious than VIRTUES.

But it is instructive, even if you are NOT a Loyalist, to look at this post as if Loyalists COULD be working at cross-purposes among Resistance.

THIS point . . . "so you believe you have a right to tell people what they can have on their computer?" . . . is the point at which Freedom Fighters can be expected to reflexively and fiercely type NO! Riiiight?




I understand it doesnt mean spy on them without reasonable suspicion and without their permission,

THIS would be to smooth feathers, to "talk the talk" . . . also kinda neutralizing the other side's chief beef . . .




but have you any problem criminalizing computer content?

. . . challenging a specific person to declare OPENNESS TO REGULATION of stomach-turning, mind-blowing exploitation ("objective" parties to decide) or being OPEN TO THE MOST HIDEOUS IMAGERY IMAGINABLE.

DO you agree that Big Government is ON THE MARCH to subdue anything resembling insurrection AND COLLECT EVERY TAX/FINE POSSIBLE, or do you dismiss as Tin Foil Hattery that Big Government is ON THE MARCH against uncooperative Rank & File?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Against the State growing food, you must be for starvation!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Maybe I am wrong about YOU, feel free to say so. MAYBE my Government's CLEAR paranoia is causing me to see Bogeymen.

The wisdom of the Ages and Sages is that VICES are more infectious than VIRTUES.

But it is instructive, even if you are NOT a Loyalist, to look at this post as if Loyalists COULD be working at cross-purposes among Resistance.

THIS point . . . "so you believe you have a right to tell people what they can have on their computer?" . . . is the point at which Freedom Fighters can be expected to reflexively and fiercely type NO! Riiiight?





THIS would be to smooth feathers, to "talk the talk" . . . also kinda neutralizing the other side's chief beef . . .





. . . challenging a specific person to declare OPENNESS TO REGULATION of stomach-turning, mind-blowing exploitation ("objective" parties to decide) or being OPEN TO THE MOST HIDEOUS IMAGERY IMAGINABLE.

DO you agree that Big Government is ON THE MARCH to subdue anything resembling insurrection AND COLLECT EVERY TAX/FINE POSSIBLE, or do you dismiss as Tin Foil Hattery that Big Government is ON THE MARCH against uncooperative Rank & File?

Vices are not crimes.

[cheapseats]

Who else is hiding anything shameful and criminal


I'd say we've crossed posting swords before but, unless I missed your response, you DIDN'T respond.

[cheapseats]

Vices are not crimes.


Do you think that has anything to do with my point? Did I anywhere suggest vices ARE crimes?

Micro / Macro.

Trees / Forest.

Circle Jerks / Big Picture.

[cheapseats]

Who else is hiding anything shameful and criminal


WHO ASKS QUESTIONS LIKE THIS?

[newbitech]

How is this any different than putting up traffic cameras to monitor running red lights? Oh that's right, the internet is not traveling on public roads or public right of way. Then again, the main carriers of the data do have their equipment in the public right of way so pretty much there is nothing private about the internet in that sense.

It's one thing to do "illegal" stuff in privacy. It's something different to do it out in the street. The other problem I see here is that child porn is not something that people have to go very far to find. There is no protection in place for people who might trip over some of this "illegal" combination of bits. Hell, the porn industry celebrates very young looking models. Barely Legal is a good example of this franchise. Don't go google searching for this stuff though, or else your gonna find yourself getting caught up in an alternate internet.

At one point in time, I considered running a porn shop on the internet. The keyword drivers are disgusting to say the least, but even more disgusting is the crap that gets indexed and linked on google. I really don't think child pornographers are out to sell porn more than they are out to find others who think like them that hopefully have access to exploit another human.

Oh, and what's up with LEO's collecting this garbage and using it as bait to lure people in? If the authorities really want to fight child porn from spreading on the internet, they should probably focus on fighting child exploitation in the real world. Go after people who produce the crap and stop wasting time trying to make it illegal and bust people who stumble on the shit while exploring the dredges of the internet.

I know it's out there, it's not hard to find. Deranged people will perpetuate spreading this data, but the real crimes will continue to go unpunished. Think about all the commercial software that is pirated over the same channels as child porn. THAT is the real intent of the legislation. The corps can't win the piracy battle without pointing out how easy it is to get other more sinister things in the same way as stealing their software.

Thanks corps for helping to expose how easy it is to get child porn. :rolleyes:

People need to realize that the internet is not a private road. I think if that was the argument, if people realized just how NOT anonymous they really were, then they wouldn't be so nonchalant about stealing software.

Another problem authorities have is that no matter what data protections they put in place, no matter how much they monitor the internet, they will always be one step behind the technology. Why? Because they aren't the ones inventing it. So these protection schemes that they come up with need to focus on emotional issues rather than technological issues. Hence, trying to say that protecting privacy is hiding behind the same argument as child pornographers.

What pisses me off is that the same authorities that want to protect children, also don't mind allowing google to pinpoint locations on their map to the street intersection level by locating nodes via IP address databases.

It's insane. If a child predator online wanted to locate an easily exploitable child, all they would need to do to find their mark in the real world would be to get their IP address and pass it through googles geolocator system. This allows an online exploiter to bypass actually tricking the kid in to giving up the address and just getting it from a chat connection.

So protecting privacy IS protecting children, even if it lets some pictures slip through, making internet experience more private ENSURES that companies cannot expose data about CHILDREN to online predators. That knife cuts both ways.

[dannno]

How is this any different than putting up traffic cameras to monitor running red lights? Oh that's right, the internet is not traveling on public roads or public right of way. Then again, the main carriers of the data do have their equipment in the public right of way so pretty much there is nothing private about the internet in that sense.

It's one thing to do "illegal" stuff in privacy. It's something different to do it out in the street.

Traffic cams can't search your car, and personally I'd prefer my local government not even use traffic cams.

Nothing wrong with the government going after internet criminals who are using the internet to steal property or hurt people, but get some probable cause and then go after them rather than wasting resources monitoring the entire internet and destroying privacy.




What pisses me off is that the same authorities that want to protect children, also don't mind allowing google to pinpoint locations on their map to the street intersection level by locating nodes via IP address databases.

It's insane. If a child predator online wanted to locate an easily exploitable child, all they would need to do to find their mark in the real world would be to get their IP address and pass it through googles geolocator system. This allows an online exploiter to bypass actually tricking the kid in to giving up the address and just getting it from a chat connection.

So protecting privacy IS protecting children, even if it lets some pictures slip through, making internet experience more private ENSURES that companies cannot expose data about CHILDREN to online predators. That knife cuts both ways.

Very good points here.

[newbitech]

Traffic cams can't search your car, and personally I'd prefer my local government not even use traffic cams.

Nothing wrong with the government going after internet criminals who are using the internet to steal property or hurt people, but get some probable cause and then go after them rather than wasting resources monitoring the entire internet and destroying privacy.





Very good points here.

To me it's just very creepy being watched all the time. It doesn't matter if I am in public or private. I don't want to be systematically stalked by electronic devices.

Why the hell does every government solution boil down to assigning some agent to watch over every aspect of my life for me? Child exploitation makes me sick, but it doesn't invade my life everyday single day, 24/7. Illegal data is easily avoided and dealt with. Government snooping in to every aspect of my life? Not so much.

[cheapseats]

What pisses me off is that the same authorities that want to protect children, also don't mind allowing google to pinpoint locations on their map to the street intersection level by locating nodes via IP address databases.

It's insane. If a child predator online wanted to locate an easily exploitable child, all they would need to do to find their mark in the real world would be to get their IP address and pass it through googles geolocator system. This allows an online exploiter to bypass actually tricking the kid in to giving up the address and just getting it from a chat connection.

So protecting privacy IS protecting children, even if it lets some pictures slip through, making internet experience more private ENSURES that companies cannot expose data about CHILDREN to online predators. That knife cuts both ways.



Very good points here.

Yes.




Another problem authorities have is that no matter what data protections they put in place, no matter how much they monitor the internet, they will always be one step behind the technology. Why? Because they aren't the ones inventing it. So these protection schemes that they come up with need to focus on emotional issues rather than technological issues. Hence, trying to say that protecting privacy is hiding behind the same argument as child pornographers.

Also this. Same deal with "exotic investment vehicles".

Of course, they don't really WANT to fix these things. What would they do THEN? What would justify taxes?

The big bucks like in PERPETUALLY FIGHTING CRIME, not eradicating it. The PERSISTENCE of a problem establishes "need" for control.

House of Medici: MONEY TO GET POWER, POWER TO PROTECT MONEY.

[heavenlyboy34]

People need to realize that the internet is not a private road. I think if that was the argument, if people realized just how NOT anonymous they really were, then they wouldn't be so nonchalant about stealing software.
Copying is NOT THEFT. /end derail

[newbitech]

Copying is NOT THEFT. /end derail

ya, I agree with that, but in the context of privacy it becomes quite obvious that if you release data in to the public domain, then it becomes common knowledge. Theft comes from people who agree to use software for a specific use and then break that agreement by first copying it, THEN making it public. So it's more of a reverse theft.

If I sell you my software solution with the agreement that you will not give it away for free, and then you turn around and give it away for free, what is that? Theft? You basically stole my work by circumventing the protections I had in place. Namely an explicit agreement to NOT copy and distribute. Now the only problem I really have is finding people who are using my software but did not get that software from me.

We are in a very grey area when it comes to data protection. Is it property? Can I actually own a piece of software? I think I can. What about my copy of Windows that uses a hacked CD key? That is a little different. Why? Because I obtained the software in the public domain, and I used my skill as a software engineer to unlock it. That to me is no different than finding a locked box in a park, taking it home and picking the lock and keeping whatever is on the inside.

Music and Movies? Grey area. There is no lock, and no agreement to not copy and distribute. If music and movie producers wanted to ensure that the people buying their stuff didn't copy and redistribute, then they should explicitly require a contract signature stating that ownership was not being passed on and usage of the data is contingent upon paying the producer a usage fee. Unlimited personal usage and copies. NO distributing over the internet.

Why won't they take that simple step instead of trying to monitor what people download and collect from public places, like the internet?

[PaulConventionWV]

The stakes are higher, but it is the same illogic behind hissing PRO ABORTION at those who are PRO CHOICE.

If yer not with us (right down the line, lockstep), yer agin' us.

I'm pro-choice. It's just that I happen to respect the choice of the child.

[cheapseats]

I'm pro-choice. It's just that I happen to respect the choice of the child.


Good luck pimping that in the General.

[cheapseats]

QUESTION:

Does a majority of THIS Board's active membership hold that there should be SOME/ANY AT ALL regulation/criminalization of Porn, or does a majority of said body hold that there should be NONE WHATSOEVER?

Libertarian and Libertine are quite different.

[onlyrp]

Libertarian and Libertine are quite different.

how so??

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm pretty sure that about 98% of what is considered 'child pornography' are actually teenagers, not children, and that 98% of those who view this so-called "child pornography" are also teenagers who are curious about what girls their own age look like. Of course it is near impossible to be verified because some 19 year olds look 15 and some 15 year olds look 19. I think the whole child pornography thing is overblown and just used by government in order to intrude in on our personal lives.

Even if there is widespread actual child pornography available, I'd rather those who are attracted to children have pictures to look at to quell their appetite rather than hurting more children. Child porn is evidence of a horrible crime and can be used to prosecute individuals who abuse children. Knowingly supporting a child abuser by paying for child pornography could certainly be considered a crime. However, making mere possession of child porn an offense is very dangerous because it can easily be planted on people's computers without their knowledge making it extremely easy for someone to take revenge or otherwise.

This. And there are 18-19 year olds that look 12-13.