What is Digg?79 Comments
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -4/+40This ***** is really scarry.
For example, checking the e-mails for child pornography should be unconstitutional (the 4th amendment).
What if I send an AOL user that I hate a bunch of child porn? Would he get in trouble for it?
How can he prove he didn't request the pictures?
What if this technolgy will soon be expanded to other stuff, such as 'terrorist' material, and later on to 'subversive' documents which criticize the government? - aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Get offended and outraged, but it won't help. The sad truth is MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS. People who post to digg take an active role in their communities (online, and I would assume offline as well), and they will disagree with me. But this is not the norm. Most people are more concerned with American Idol.
The question is how do we make them care? We can't. The only way is for things to get so bad that the US goes through another revolution, most likely political but perhaps violent. In the meantime the only thing you can do is live your life, because the sheep who call themselves patriots will spend their time worrying about gay marraige and child porn. I'm not saying child porn is good, but is there REALLY that much out there where it qualifies as a national epidemic for which we need our rights taken away?
My only hope is the IRS starts invading bank accounts like the rest of the Bush administration has done. Then perhaps those with enough money to affect change will lobby lawmakers to effect some sort of check or balance. I wish the founders of this nation had thought to put something like that in writing. In retrospect, that would have been a good idea. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Ok, so you are all for private companies to monitor the streets and highways and report you to the police if you exceeded the speed limit?
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Why am I against that? First, it will be totally innefective. Any person smart enough to find and distribute child porn will most likely encrypt the data, which will make it impossible to use MD5 sums to tag files.
The second reason is that if such a technolgy is in place, RIAA and MPAA will lobby for it to be applied to their stuff as well, not only to child porn.
How about putting a telescreen in our homes as well, to ensure we don't do bad things? - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@Oakes -> Are you honestly so offended by an attempt to crack down on perverts that you are driven to talk about a violent revolution?
You don't get it, I'm afraid. Remember something called "due process"? That's a nice part of our legal system that purports a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, not of guilt. If you haven't done anything illegal, and there's no reason to suspect you of any illegal act, there is no surveilance, no illegal wiretapping, no searching of email, financial or telephone records...period.
People who claim that you have nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong have this entirely backward. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"On the other hand, if they're just storing hash values of known images (as part of the article suggests) that's not a concern."
That is a concern, if they're storing hash values of images that don't involve raping babies.
For example, there are nude photographs of Kate Moss taken when she 15. If you're a fan of the model, you probably have one of those photos, because they were from a landmark shoot that launched her career, and because they're great photos. We call that art photography. But, if you were to take the SAME photo, as an amateur photographer, you could be a child pornographer.
I couldn't find any of the nudes on Google in two minutes, but here's a quote from an article about the shoot.
#
Moss said, “Corinne just wanted to bring out everything that I hated when I was fifteen. My bow legs, THE MOLE ON MY BREAST, the way I laughed”.
#
Kate Moss, Aged 15:
http://www.outsideleft.com/main.php?updateID=550
I've seen the photos--have possessed them on my harddrive even--and assure you there are nudes. Nude art photos of underage girls are not all that unusual.
The problem is that there is no rational criteria differentiating between art photography and pornography. Basically, as far as I can tell, if you're a BAD photographer--as in not very talanted--you're a pornographer. If people don't like you're photos, you're a pornographer. That's it. The "difference" is purely subjective. It's legislated opinion.
And here's the critical thing. Why is it opinion? Because, when you legislate morality, it is BY DEFINITION a judgment based on opinion.
This would be the point where most people say, "But I'm not supporting baby rapists." But I'm not going to say that. Despite what Nazis like Oakes would say, this issue is not about baby rapists. It's about infringing upon our civil liberties and legislating opinion. When you say, "Oh, but what about the children," you're *****. "Defending the children" is a BAD idea, whether your ultimate goal be to stop child pornography or fight a War on Terror. We need to defend people's rights. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Oakes, you are a borderline-Nazi Wingnut. You can research my comments about Moonbats and leftwingers to ascertain that this is not coming from one of them. I'm a rational person who actively argues against leftists and am telling you that you are a ***** nut. Your views offend me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The first comment has it exactly right, but a funny point no one has mentioned is that they're fighting child porn by collecting and distributing it. The logic is brilliant. Do they have a team of eunuchs on this or what?
Another thing is that we have no idea how they define child porn. If they mean porn that has no discernable differences from standard teen porn, then you can just imagine how many innocent people are going to get caught up in this. They may even consider lolicon hentai to be child porn. Once they've crossed that line to abuse people's freedoms and engage in a witch hunt, there's just no telling what motivates these people. - ChadK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What I don't understand is why more support isn't being given to the type of work the Toronto Police are doing in this area:
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/sexcrimes/ces.php
They take a look at the ACTUAL PICTURES (not who is currently in possession of them) and finds the people taking the pictures, and the children, by using the setting of the pictures. This is good police work, and a cause worth investigating. As seen on the comments here and the comments on /. people going to a site and having something come up, or receiving this sort of hate mail are hardly worth investigating. It's the perpetrators taking the photos and abusing the children that everyone SHOULD be concerned about. - shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9the government has been trying to do this for as long as the Internet has been around
this is not the first time the government asked the ISPs to snoop on their customers - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It Already happens in real mail. Postal Inspectors and the DEA have a nice working agreement on how to handle someone who receives marijuana in the mail.
- chase001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Big Brother must spy on everyone to protect you from terrorists and child pornographers.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Dude, the Founding Fathers of the US made a thingy called "The 4th amendment". Which says, amontg other things, that the government should NOT search people and their possesions without a PROBABLE CAUSE.
Do you think it would be a good idea to give away our privacy so that a few people that have child pornography and e-mail it unencrypted go to jail? - mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5On a technical note, it's probably not necessary to encrypt files to avoid this kind of system. The most commonly used image format out there is JPEG, which is a lossy algorithm. Just opening and re-saving a JPEG in any image editor will change the file, giving it a different hash value.
In any case, I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea of anyone but law enforcement organizations building a database of child porn. If private companies do it, where's the oversight? Do we really believe that AOL is going to be able to prevent an unscrupulous employee from making off with a copy of the database and selling it? On the other hand, if they're just storing hash values of known images (as part of the article suggests) that's not a concern. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ok, for the 3rd time then.
Do you believe that a 3rd party company installing telescreen in your house, and report any suspicious behaviour to the police is OK?
Do you believe that because someone gets child pornography in an e-mail he or she is a child rapist?
You seem to equate getting an e-mail with illegal activity.
Even sending such e-mails doesn't necesarly make you a child rapist. For example, it is not uncommon for trojans and viruses to hijack someone's computer and send spam and viruses to other people.
I do agree that they should seek out the producers of child porn, but not monitor everyone's e-mail in the name of fighting the child porn. Because if they start doing that, how do you know they will not expand this program to other type of illegal files, such as mp3s, movies, anarchist cookbooks, hacking manuals, and so on? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Oh please, let's give the government MORE oversight power. We can create a new agency or add a new arm to an existing agency. I don't want the government running my life. If you want more government oversight, open up YOUR checkbook to pay for the costs of the usually inefficient way in which government oversees anything.
Do you really believe your government won't simply LOSE the database as precedent suggests they will? I have more faith that AOL will employ tight security to keep an account than I have in the government keeping a secret or not losing my personal information! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The end of the internet is just around the corner guys
=[ - Anth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Encryption will easily break this system. And while not everyone is skilled in how to encrypt stuff, you can bet the "professionals" will know how to and the ones that are abusing the kids wont get caught easily with this (or just about any) system implemented by ISPs. All you'll do is go after the unskilled viewers. Which is ok, but you're still not targeting the source, which I think should be a higher priority.
- V1ncent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The lesser of two evils argument has been used by many to justify the unjustifiable.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@oakes "As long as it is a choice made by the private company, the Consitution does not apply."
That doesn't make it RIGHT. Private companies are taking these measures because the government has forced their hand by threataning legislation that IS forbidden by the constitution. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3broomrape is totally right.
Defining child porn is a very subjective thing. Some believe child porn is clear sexual contact witha child, or stuff such as masturbation. On the other hand, the law is very ambigous; child porn is also a picture where a child is depicted in a 'lewd' pose, or where the camera is focused on the genitals.
One guy got sent to jail for buying a movie with clothed kids dancing around a camp fire, because the camera focused too much on their clothed genitals.
Do some search in Wikipedia about child pornography, and you will find how confusing the laws are. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Why would a corporation want to open themselves up to such an enormous legal risk by housing child pornography on their servers? Also, how does a corporation get around the law by housing child pornography in the first place? whats to keep some pervert employee from getting their kicks or taking this stuff home? Somewhere in this equation a human or two will have to be viewing and cataloging all of this pornography.
- sarusa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So they're creating the world's largest database of child porn, ostensibly in order to fight it.
WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG - richardtallent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The real issue here, the thing we must fight for, is to ensure that our digital lives (emails, web traffic, IMs, telephone calls, search histories, etc.) be considered part of our "persons, houses, papers, and effects." Would we allow the Federal government to open, copy, and archive every letter sent through the USPS if we were told they were "only" checking for child porn and terrorist phrases?
I'm all about protecting children from predators, but this is the wrong solution on so many levels. Aside from the Consitutional slippery slope (first the child abusers, then the terrorists, then the drug dealers, then the copyright infringers, then the political dissidents, then everyone else) and the technical workarounds (encryption, minor file changes), consider the most obvious terrible result of such a system: if only "old" child porn is flagged, there will be a huge premium on "new" contraband, and we all know what it required for that. - dougmc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4`Oh, it's OK. I wasn't using my civil liberties anyways.'
- MartinB3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Encrypting your files doesn't require a doctor. You made a stupid point.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cast the argument accurately.
A: You and 299 million other people lose "a bit" of your freedoms
B: One child is harmed and one "sicko" goes free.
I choose A. Call me selfish. Isn't our system one in which, for better or worse, there is a majority rule? - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its automated meaning the only ones looking at it will be robots and i kind of doubt that they will give a crap
- tfizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That's what we need. Government officials collecting child porn to stop it. It's all good and well until a computer gets stolen from someone and 25 million records are compromised.
Seriously, though----No one should be above the rules. ESPECIALLY the people in charge. It makes me sick how because it's the government they could trample our rights (which they give us) if they want to. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Be forward thinking. Encryption is getting easier and easier to employ. "Snooping" by anyone, any organization, any government will drive encryption to be the norm, rather than the exception. People will demand encryption and products that "do" encryption quickly, easily, and securely will reap the benefits the market has to offer. I haven't looked but I am pretty confident there is a program out there that will let me right click on a file and choose "encrypt." No skill greater than using your computer (which they are if they are using email!) required.
TrueCrypt is an excellent, open source product available at SourceForge. Start using it people to at least protect important documents on your computer. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I hope this doesn't hurt 4chan too badly, with all the CP trolls lately.
- timbudtwo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem isn't only the fact of them being able to look at your private mail without permission. It is what it can develop into. Most people are too worried about using a slippery slope argument. But in a governments standpoint, that is exactly what happens, and it is undenyable that it WILL happen. You give them one inch and they take a mile. Or in Gov't terms, we take one inch, then we take the other mile illeagally, or just change the laws when you aren't looking.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TKDWILSON "but most child pornographers are idiots."
You say this with authority like you know something about that group of people that the rest of us don't. I would think that most child pornographers spend a *great deal* of time online. They are bound to pick up stealth techniques from other child pornographers whether they are idiots or not. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah they cast these as an "either or" false dichotomy; Either you are for this law or you are for harming children and supporting pedophiles. Sorry, that is BS.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"""""You say this with authority like you know something about that group of people"""""
I am a special ed teacher. You will be supprised how much you can find out. There is so little help out there for kids in reality without perfect proof.
Eric Wilson - mrpackrat42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@broomrape
Actually, those nude photos of Kate Moss at 15 are almost certainly illegal to possess or transmit under current U.S. law. So you can call them art, but the law will call them child porn. Guess who's going to win that argument.
When I said that storing file hashes wasn't a concern, I meant it removed the problem of private corporations keeping databases of child porn. And anyway, I don't think it's a privacy concern because it just won't work. Hashes are just not the right tool for what they want to do here. Cryptographic hash functions are designed to produce a large variance in the hash value for even a one bit difference in the source file. Lossy compression algorithms, and even random file corruption in transit, will break a system based on identifying images base on hash values. - ibuylowsellhigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree, just like my data with the Veterans Administration. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One major problem is that the email providers should not be looking through anyone's email. If I were in the mafia, and lets say I ordered a hit on somebody, should the phone company be scanning conservations for possible crimes? I thought that is why we had police and the FBI, ATF and the rest of the alphabet soup of law enforcement agencies. I thought that they had to identify a person and the thing to be searched and get it approved by a court.
People in the United States have a right to privacy. I can not use a packet sniffer on my neighbor legally so why should a corporation which is considered an individual by law have rights greater than mine? Yahoo should not care what people use their service for UNTIL a warrant arrives that says they must allow that particular account to be monitored or searched. The Constitution applies to everyone in the nation including companies. The government can not create special rules for them (well actually they can and do, but they shouldn't).
There is also a problem with the definition of Child pornography. If I were writing the laws it would be defined as images or video depicting actual sexual activity of persons under the age of consent. Unfortunately congress decided to make as vague as possible. If a prosecutor decides that an image is lewd even if the person is fully clothed, it is pornography. Even though the age of consent varies by state, 18 is legal for pornography. This means you can have sex at 16 in some states but if you film it, you are now a pedophile. If your 16 year old girlfriend emails you images of her in a new thong, she just created and distributed child porn, and you received it. Now both of you are sex offenders. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"We're talking about _private companies_ here. The presumption of innocence is a legal principle applied to the courts - that's it."
So employees of private companies have the right to stockpile child porn? I thought downloading, possessing, and distributing child pornography was supposed to be illegal. It looks to me like the government is making a special exception in this case, because these so-called private companies are doing the government's dirty work. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And why shouldn't they fight what will inevitably be a tax (called such or otherwise) to pay for additional regulation, which government typically does at a much higher price with poorer results. See the Drug War for spending, with a supposedly noble goal in mind, with little or no result other than successfully INCREASING crime, INCREASING profits for drug dealers, and FAILING to tap a nice tax base.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jayhawks71
I think you meant that you chose "B" - Oakes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sulaco,
From the article: "Tuesday's announcement comes just hours before the beginning of a two-day U.S. House of Representatives hearing that will explore enacting new laws to require Internet providers to store records on what Americans are doing online, a concept called data retention."
Data retention has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment assuming that the government receives a warrent in order to investigate anyone's data in particular. But don't let that stop you all from whining about perverts having their privacy violated by humanless detection systems. I've yet to see an article on digg concerning pedophilia in which there wasn't widespread excuse-making, privacy-paranoia, and pervert-defending on the part of digg users. You guys really make me sick. - Improbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is all moot until they outlaw encryption.
- potee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Brilliant move on MS, Yahoo, and AOL's part. The whole child porn angle is just the excuse the government is using as justification to pry into ISP records. This is on the same level as warrantless wiretapping. (The courts have always been able to issue warrants for an individual ISP subscriber's records, but this time they basically want to put a big data-mining computer between your computer and the ISP's server.)
By offering to help crack down on child porn, these companies are saving themselves money and bad publicity (see AT&T), because they're now forcing the government to come up with a new excuse to walk around people's constitutional right to privacy. Brilliant strategy. (I come from a family of lawyers, can you tell?) - vlade77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think that this is an attempt by the ISP's to avoid heavier costs if the USA government makes their policy mandatory. It has nothing to do with protection of the individual privacy. Anyway, I hope that any of this behavior by the US government doesn't crawl in to other countries.
- PunkRampant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thank god not all companies are like AT&T. See? Not EVERY telecom wants to strip you of your liberties. These guys are actually trying to protect us from the politicians - and hey, even AOL has joined this coalition. Good for them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah! The governemtn should stay out of the internet! Oh...excpet for the asinine Net Neutrality Bill. Then it should be in it.
How ***** STUPID you sound!
LOVe when people quote the Bill of Rights as it pertains to PRIVATE companies!
And love how the rest of your ***** at digg bury a comment for pointing out how stupid you all are. - vlade77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm 100% with you on this. I'm saying that they're not just defending their clients, but also seeking smaller costs.
- tonyjack63, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One certainly must read between the lines on this story. I'm wondering which Representatives up for reelection this fall are backing this and who's lining his pockets. Besides that, this is one of those 'I'm for/against.....(fill in the blank) laws that help garner support from the politicians during an election year. I'd say it's a safe bet the majority abhor child pornography.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1tl;dr
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is