|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > May 2005 > Newshosting Drop All Naughty Groups
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Newshosting Drop All Naughty Groups
|
|
|
| It seems that all NH servers, which will include privacy.li as one of
their resellers, have stopped allowing posting to and even receiving
posts from other servers to the main pedo groups. Now before you all
shed a tear for all them poor pedo's :-) There's something about this
I don't like one bit. Not only have binary posts been filtered/banned
from these groups, which BTW, includes both binary and non binary groups!
But all text posts, EVEN SPAM, seem to have been blocked/filtered/banned.
I'll refrain from naming the groups that seem affected for obvious reasons,
but they include groups of both male and female interests.
Whatever your feelings about the content of these kind of groups may be,
and what you believe should be done to those that view this type of material
is, one thing is for sure. Banning/blocking text posts from these or any
kind of group is a very slippery slope for freedom of speech.
Surely what will also happen is this pedo's will just regroup, find another
empty group with an obsolete name, and then take more care about how they
post and how they disguise their posts. And thanks to NH or other NSP's that
follow this route, the LEA's jobs will be a hell of a lot harder in the
future. At least they were all in a place that the LEA's knew about and
could monitor, this kind of action will scatter them all over usenet!
Aha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.privacy.anon-server.]
On 12 May 2005 02:28:37 -0000, Aha wrote in
Message-Id: <3NIUYRTB38484.1378240741@anonymous.poster>:
> It seems that all NH servers, which will include privacy.li as one of
> their resellers, have stopped allowing posting to and even receiving
> posts from other servers to the main pedo groups.
There was a big fuss about this in the UK a few years ago when the police
wanted ISP's to drop known pedo newsgroups. All the big ISP's at the
time complied, with the exception of Demon Internet who refused. I can
remember them being interviewed about it on national news.
The upshot was that Demon became the ISP who stood up for their users
and earned themselves great respect. They didn't like what was being
said, but they defended peoples right to say it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQoMrt2oLu9HNUqmMAQqoEQf+L3/y3HafpE2bKNLs6D6S7wnYIYMC7QBz
bULH17LvWi+Ai40PtsAcg/EkXB6LRIwGW15ALXy4C7ubA2I/Uz6CthaQGwunXAL1
rNO4EiwFWp6tuCG26EBCRNM8bEfg4bxiAMwJEIw1
QQxCpz625Dr37+EsebAaM8KW
O5B06WkL69lcPQzivkRWdIfXy1kf6jOzLmqU0Sqv
4ZkK7uqt0g+obfoafKCPyBou
T9uBEEfalFBIfWGZkgr7zlDA4rd0G0Ui6fIvj/Uaq3pZUPMjzVPCIGQtB8OY6zyO
tu3YgDDAq+IPkk5XJCpTS2GACHQAr7eXlheNE3iU
oLPUU6OYU/FiXg==
=2pZA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
| |
| Dissenter 2005-05-12, 7:45 am |
| On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:11:03 +0000 (UTC), Zax
<fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.privacy.anon-server.]
>On 12 May 2005 02:28:37 -0000, Aha wrote in
>Message-Id: <3NIUYRTB38484.1378240741@anonymous.poster>:
>
>
>There was a big fuss about this in the UK a few years ago when the police
>wanted ISP's to drop known pedo newsgroups. All the big ISP's at the
>time complied, with the exception of Demon Internet who refused. I can
>remember them being interviewed about it on national news.
>
>The upshot was that Demon became the ISP who stood up for their users
>and earned themselves great respect. They didn't like what was being
>said, but they defended peoples right to say it.
That was then. In 2001 they handed the cops details of all the people
who were accessing said 'naughty' groups and some of the uploaders
were arrested. Then they dropped all the groups.
Details:
Nine held in net child porn raids
The Guardian, UK: 29 November 2001
http://society.guardian.co.uk/child...,608773,00.html
--
Dissenter
| |
| Dissenter 2005-05-12, 7:45 am |
| On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:11:03 +0000 (UTC), Zax
<fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>On 12 May 2005 02:28:37 -0000, Aha wrote in
>Message-Id: <3NIUYRTB38484.1378240741@anonymous.poster>:
>
>
>There was a big fuss about this in the UK a few years ago when the police
>wanted ISP's to drop known pedo newsgroups. All the big ISP's at the
>time complied, with the exception of Demon Internet who refused. I can
>remember them being interviewed about it on national news.
>
>The upshot was that Demon became the ISP who stood up for their users
>and earned themselves great respect. They didn't like what was being
>said, but they defended peoples right to say it.
That was then. In 2001 they handed the cops details of all the people
who were accessing said 'naughty' groups and some of the uploaders
were arrested. Then they dropped all the groups.
Details:
Nine held in net child porn raids
The Guardian, UK: 29 November 2001
http://society.guardian.co.uk/child...,608773,00.html
--
Dissenter
| |
|
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.privacy.anon-server.]
On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:04:32 +0100, Dissenter wrote in
Message-Id: <meh681lkscnu004j1glkaaq7j49pna2064@4ax.com>:
> That was then. In 2001 they handed the cops details of all the people
> who were accessing said 'naughty' groups and some of the uploaders
> were arrested. Then they dropped all the groups.
>
> Details:
> Nine held in net child porn raids
> The Guardian, UK: 29 November 2001
> http://society.guardian.co.uk/child...,608773,00.html
I think Demon Internet were taken over by another company called Thus
sometime around then. Perhaps they kept the name and dropped the
ethics?
I left Demon around that time and went elsewhere, not because
of this issue though, just because their broadband service was crap at
the time.
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
| |
| George Orwell 2005-05-12, 5:46 pm |
| If somebody wanted to make binaries available to his friends and do
it anonymously, would this work?
Use Tor and privoxy to:
anonymously get an account with somebody like hotmail who allows
250mb of storage.
log on to the account and send an email to yourself and attach the
naughty pictures, which would be conventionally encrypted with pgp.
Use remailers to tell your friends the password of the hotmail
account and the key to the encrypted attachments.
They would then use tor and privoxy to download the encrypted
binaries and decrypt them with the key you supplied.
The weak spot might be when you are sending the message, since
hotmail needs to copy the file from your hard drive to its server.
I don't know if, at this point, hotmail can log information about
your real address, or whether it is still hidden by tor.
| |
| Anonymous via Panta Rhei 2005-05-12, 5:46 pm |
| In article <3NIUYRTB38484.1378240741@anonymous.poster>
Aha <anonymous@panta-rhei.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
> It seems that all NH servers, which will include privacy.li as one of
> their resellers, have stopped allowing posting to and even receiving
> posts from other servers to the main pedo groups. Now before you all
> shed a tear for all them poor pedo's :-) There's something about this
> I don't like one bit. Not only have binary posts been filtered/banned
> from these groups, which BTW, includes both binary and non binary groups!
> But all text posts, EVEN SPAM, seem to have been blocked/filtered/banned.
> I'll refrain from naming the groups that seem affected for obvious reasons,
> but they include groups of both male and female interests.
> Whatever your feelings about the content of these kind of groups may be,
> and what you believe should be done to those that view this type of material
> is, one thing is for sure. Banning/blocking text posts from these or any
> kind of group is a very slippery slope for freedom of speech.
> Surely what will also happen is this pedo's will just regroup, find another
> empty group with an obsolete name, and then take more care about how they
> post and how they disguise their posts. And thanks to NH or other NSP's that
> follow this route, the LEA's jobs will be a hell of a lot harder in the
> future. At least they were all in a place that the LEA's knew about and
> could monitor, this kind of action will scatter them all over usenet!
>
> Aha
>
It's hard to know how to feel about this. I suppose Hooray for blocking
binaries, Booo for blocking text sums it up for me.
Perhaps the LEAs have their eyes on who might be "coincidentally" canceling
their accounts and signing up with other NSPs. That would be a smooth
trick.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughtful post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
| |
| Antipodean Bucket Farmer 2005-05-13, 2:45 am |
| In article <d5va3n$u08$1@snorky.bananasplit.info>,
fleegle@bananasplit.info says...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.privacy.anon-server.]
> On 12 May 2005 02:28:37 -0000, Aha wrote in
> Message-Id: <3NIUYRTB38484.1378240741@anonymous.poster>:
>
>
> There was a big fuss about this in the UK a few years ago when the police
> wanted ISP's to drop known pedo newsgroups. All the big ISP's at the
> time complied, with the exception of Demon Internet who refused. I can
> remember them being interviewed about it on national news.
>
> The upshot was that Demon became the ISP who stood up for their users
> and earned themselves great respect. They didn't like what was being
> said, but they defended peoples right to say it.
The content of those newsgroups is obviously going to
stray out of the "unpopular" range and into the
"illegal" range.
If you are the only major ISP in the country that
insists on carrying such newsgroups, then the police
know whom to target.
While they could seriously claim "common carrier"
status as a defence, they would still be at high risk
for costs/time/hassle of being hauled into court. And
could still lose (despite that defence), just on the
basis of the court's moral indignation.
Also, they would immediately become a magnet for the
types of customers who want to use those particular
newsgroups. Thus resulting in more risk of warrants
and hassles to cough up user logs to police. Defending
"free speech" won't be nearly so much fun when the cops
place a Carnivore-type box in your facility, and tell
you to keep your mouth shut about it.
And the whole "free speech" premise is shaky, anyway.
The editor and publisher of a newspaper get to select
wire services to which they will subscribe. And get to
select which stories to run. And they get to set
limits for their writers. And to select which letters
to the editor they will run.
If someone doesn't like those limits, then their
recourse is to cough up the resources to start their
own paper. "Freedom of the press is for those who own
one."
Someone else's freedom to say as they please, is NOT my
obligation to devote MY resources to broadcasting their
statements (posts, binaries, etc.)
Also, I do NOT believe that anyone has a "right" to
broadcast child-pr0n. Those predators certainly aren't
respecting their victims' "right" to decide what will
be "expressed." Would you really believe that a
scumbag who sexually assaulted YOU, had some kind of
"right" to broadcast photos/video of the incident?
Is it a "slippery slope" towards censorship? Yes.
Which is why there should be very careful consideration
as to exactly WHAT types of "speech" should be
suppressed, based upon REAL victimisation of REAL
people.
And hysterically *claiming* victimisation should be
viewed with suspicion. I have encountered induhviduals
who claimed that *I* was victimising "everyone" by
simply working harder at my job, or by being more
honest about human nature (e.g. my truly evil
statements that, "Some parents don't love their kids.")
I am serious - I have actually met induhviduals who
branded me as a "bad person" for working hard and
telling general truths like that.
And, of course, the Andrea Dworkin type paranoia
shouldn't cut it in the real world.
Anyway, back to the topic... I just cannot imagine
feeling OK with running an ISP that had child-pr0n
newsgroups. Not only morally, but what if some
cop/court/gubmint suddenly twists the law to charge me
with knowing/deliberate possession/transmission? How
could I sincerely defend that?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:39:58 -0700, Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote in
Message-Id: <MPG.1ceddc5638f40d19898ef@news.xtra.co.nz>:
> The content of those newsgroups is obviously going to
> stray out of the "unpopular" range and into the
> "illegal" range.
Yes, the content of those groups was probably illegal in some countries.
Then again, the content of apa-s is also probably illegal in a few.
There must be 100's of newsgroups where the content on occasion breaks a
law. Especially if you take into account all the libellous statements
made about people.
I know that's not quite the same as paedophilia, but it does present the
case that there is no hard and fast line when it comes to legality and
acceptability on Usenet.
> If you are the only major ISP in the country that
> insists on carrying such newsgroups, then the police
> know whom to target.
There are plenty of commercial Usenet services and they seem to grade
themselves on which carries the most groups. Besides commercials,
there's also the free services such as Terranews. I'm not sure if these
are regulated in some way to ensure they don't carry illegal content.
> While they could seriously claim "common carrier"
> status as a defence, they would still be at high risk
> for costs/time/hassle of being hauled into court. And
> could still lose (despite that defence), just on the
> basis of the court's moral indignation.
Very true. Paedophilia is the number one unpopular Internet crime of
our time. Anyone accused of having been involved is immediately treated
as guilty before a trial even commences. It's the 21st century
equivalent of being accused of practising witchcraft.
[snip]
> Also, I do NOT believe that anyone has a "right" to
> broadcast child-pr0n. Those predators certainly aren't
> respecting their victims' "right" to decide what will
> be "expressed." Would you really believe that a
> scumbag who sexually assaulted YOU, had some kind of
> "right" to broadcast photos/video of the incident?
Certainly not, but that doesn't make freedom of speech the guilty party.
During the last few months in Iraq there have been plenty of murders,
but the news services are guilty of no crime for having filmed and
broadcast them. Look at the horrific scenes during 9/11. The crime
wasn't showing the world what happened, but the event itself.
I appreciate these aren't perfect examples as there doubtlessly are laws
about broadcasting child-porn; I'm just making the point that there is
no black and white when it comes to the Internet. Much of the material
and comments are in some way illegal, but we run Remailers (in part) to
grant people the right to say them.
> Is it a "slippery slope" towards censorship? Yes.
> Which is why there should be very careful consideration
> as to exactly WHAT types of "speech" should be
> suppressed, based upon REAL victimisation of REAL
> people.
I think this is the key point in the debate. In almost all cases,
speech should not be censored. Pictures and video are probably a
different topic for discussion. Even taking the paedophile example; is
it wrong to talk about it in a newsgroup, when the real crime is the
committal of the act in the first place? My jury's out on that one. 
[snip]
> Anyway, back to the topic... I just cannot imagine
> feeling OK with running an ISP that had child-pr0n
> newsgroups. Not only morally, but what if some
> cop/court/gubmint suddenly twists the law to charge me
> with knowing/deliberate possession/transmission? How
> could I sincerely defend that?
What about newsgroups relating to terrorism, anarchy, drug cultivation,
bestiality, racism, Nazis? Just a few I spotted on a quick trawl
through the list. If a line needs to be drawn, where do you draw it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQoSJumoLu9HNUqmMAQq1QQf/ZEEcPc9LXujp0dy7aP+Q1qXA4C4ynfr/
Bx0y4LeSFMwQsj1TX14f3iKgBQqQtYyYXDJ++G/dTtUtzwf2KbrZKUKpuaD4RTRx
kZGVBBqn5fOxtv8UI37e1ynq3ukcebnbhLZ1k1a4
NiEBnwU12QL7l/Xc1K70MPz0
dijTuJMgZ1BU/ DPWyVhWuYomFGDh9vRovp0MxOv7m7q7vn4YZccPL
WtOtaazo7A+
J0gdvXxxiSmODdpG6tH7GQgyHRahbfocKmMer7rN
zD886g+dCgs2dqB29jwMJRzq
J9WYuGhqJ4oIpf45HJF9A7B7x86k1cEd4ziUW0GB
fIb2ARJgLFGS2w==
=+sUH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
| |
| Nomen Nescio 2005-05-14, 1:04 pm |
| On Fri, 13 May 2005, Zax <fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>
>What about newsgroups relating to terrorism, anarchy, drug cultivation,
>bestiality, racism, Nazis? Just a few I spotted on a quick trawl
>through the list. If a line needs to be drawn, where do you draw it?
"Won't *SOMEBODY* please think of the CHIIIILDREEEEN!?" <G>
| |
| The Joker 2005-05-14, 1:04 pm |
| On Fri, 13 May 2005 19:40:01 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 May 2005, Zax <fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>
>"Won't *SOMEBODY* please think of the CHIIIILDREEEEN!?" <G>
Well it's a lot easier to think about them if you can look at pictures
of them. <g>
--
Mr Nobody
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2005-05-15, 5:45 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[long]
Zax wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.privacy.anon-server.]
> On 12 May 2005 02:28:37 -0000, Aha wrote in
> Message-Id: <3NIUYRTB38484.1378240741@anonymous.poster>:
>
>
>
>
> There was a big fuss about this in the UK a few years ago when the police
> wanted ISP's to drop known pedo newsgroups. All the big ISP's at the
> time complied, with the exception of Demon Internet who refused. I can
> remember them being interviewed about it on national news.
>
> The upshot was that Demon became the ISP who stood up for their users
> and earned themselves great respect. They didn't like what was being
> said, but they defended peoples right to say it.
I have to agree with you in this thread here Zax, and I figure you might
need some support on such a questionable subject, still I think all
remops (except probably Parsifal) have the same stand on this subject:
"Freedom of speech above all!" and "Filtering is bad".
I used to send someone I knew about indirectly (she works for the Dutch
internet organization on childporn that works together with the Dutch
police on this subject) mail on the subject hoping to provoke a reaction
from her on his subject and possible helping me to position myself in
this debate. She, after a few years, basically told me to XXXX off and I
did.
I still do not know her position on the subject of pedophile newsgroups
and I probably never will :-( It's a damned shame! My contact with the
person that I knew her from indirectly also has diminished to my great
discomfort.
So how do I feel about Childporn groups? Well, same as you I guess. They
are used for illegal activity (and *only* illegal activity I might add),
but it is *very* good to have them localized to those groups as 'Aha'
also mentions.
Same with BitTorrent (compared to Mixmaster). The protocol started out
having good uses (like distributing linux ISO's efficiently and fast),
but there are also trackers where you can find the latest movies and
computer games. If the police knock on your door and find thousands of
burned cd's with DivX movies you are probably in trouble. Same if they
find Childporn on your computer (but to a lesser extend because they
could be put there by crackers that broke into your computer to get you
into trouble).
So I think that owners of childporn should be arrested and do time. Even
moreso for distributors of childporn. It is just illegal to do so!
But the protocol (mixmaster) which got it to the other protocol (usenet)
should not be banned or even filtered upon. Clearly filtering on e.g.
the title of Madonna's latest video DVD is very undesirable, but at
least we can think clear on this. Pedophilism is so emotionally
overloaded that it is hard to think about it clearly, still we should
make the distinction between illegal content and the medium.
Heck, when the subject first came up I even visited a few of the alleged
groups to go and see for myself. I was very pleased to find pedophile
stories posted there with a very effective disclaimer at the bottom that
these children are *emotionally scarred* forever! And no, watching those
pictures didn't make me a pedophile. [I am still a healthy heterosexual
who seems to like women who are slightly (like five years) older as myself].
By putting pedophiles (and childporn) into illegality, you also loose
control over (and communication with) those groups of people. Control
that is so very important!
We tend to applaud everything that is done these days to increase our
security. Like microphones in the streets of Groningen (Holland) to
listen for trouble (like fights). Still what we gain in perceived
security, we lose in our privacy and resources to provide safety.
In fact, and I am going far here; I believe that by illegalizing
childporn and filtering places known to have them, we are in fact
/pushing/ the illegal providers and seekers of this content more and
more into illegality making them do worse and worse things. I have read
about Childporn rings where you could only become a member by providing
your own childporn (in different degrees of severity).. I can imagine a
pedophile raping someone he knows and making pictures of that just to be
able to access the material in the Childporn ring..
Wouldn't it have been better if he could have gotten those (illegal)
pictures from a newsgroup instead? In this case the little girl would
still be unharmed IMHO?!
Well, that's enough for now, I'll probably get flamed for this,
Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQodsQQEP2l8iXKAJAQF/SgMfYDA9y+NIpe2M4ry3sSbmwKP8n4p08lLY
kAFjviwLNKujY4dpvUF7ys+zpt+t/FbiH5G2YKUVfC2JFrNVSeWFiOdVRY5KPML5
UX2EbRx0vc9zW6pMeLAqr/CpGCbpCRaco66mwQ==
=fdmB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| J.Alfred Prufrock 2005-05-16, 5:46 pm |
| On Thu, 12 May 2005, George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>If somebody wanted to make binaries available to his friends
and do
>it anonymously, would this work?
>
>Use Tor and privoxy to:
>
>anonymously get an account with somebody like hotmail who allows
>250mb of storage.
>
>log on to the account and send an email to yourself and attach
the
>naughty pictures, which would be conventionally encrypted with
pgp.
>
>Use remailers to tell your friends the password of the hotmail
>account and the key to the encrypted attachments.
>
>They would then use tor and privoxy to download the encrypted
>binaries and decrypt them with the key you supplied.
>
>The weak spot might be when you are sending the message, since
>hotmail needs to copy the file from your hard drive to its
server.
>I don't know if, at this point, hotmail can log information
about
>your real address, or whether it is still hidden by tor.
My guess is that the special software hotmail uses will identify
the user. Of course, the content would still be hidden, but PGP
is rather obvious, and I suspect it wouldn't be long before the
concept is "banned" or becomes impractical.
J. A. Prufrock
| |
| George Orwell 2005-05-18, 7:49 am |
| In <42876C41.4010304@hccnet.nl.invalid>, nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid wrote:
>=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
>Signature: 0x225CA009
>Date:
>Status: INVALID (Unknown)
>
>[long]
>
>Zax wrote:
>
>I have to agree with you in this thread here Zax, and I figure you might
>need some support on such a questionable subject, still I think all
>remops (except probably Parsifal) have the same stand on this subject:
>"Freedom of speech above all!" and "Filtering is bad".
>
>I used to send someone I knew about indirectly (she works for the Dutch
>internet organization on childporn that works together with the Dutch
>police on this subject) mail on the subject hoping to provoke a reaction
>from her on his subject and possible helping me to position myself in
>this debate. She, after a few years, basically told me to XXXX off and I
>did.
>
>I still do not know her position on the subject of pedophile newsgroups
>and I probably never will :-( It's a damned shame! My contact with the
>person that I knew her from indirectly also has diminished to my great
>discomfort.
>
>So how do I feel about Childporn groups? Well, same as you I guess. They
>are used for illegal activity (and *only* illegal activity I might add),
>but it is *very* good to have them localized to those groups as 'Aha'
>also mentions.
>
>Same with BitTorrent (compared to Mixmaster). The protocol started out
>having good uses (like distributing linux ISO's efficiently and fast),
>but there are also trackers where you can find the latest movies and
>computer games. If the police knock on your door and find thousands of
>burned cd's with DivX movies you are probably in trouble. Same if they
>find Childporn on your computer (but to a lesser extend because they
>could be put there by crackers that broke into your computer to get you
>into trouble).
>
>So I think that owners of childporn should be arrested and do time. Even
>moreso for distributors of childporn. It is just illegal to do so!
>
>But the protocol (mixmaster) which got it to the other protocol (usenet)
>should not be banned or even filtered upon. Clearly filtering on e.g.
>the title of Madonna's latest video DVD is very undesirable, but at
>least we can think clear on this. Pedophilism is so emotionally
>overloaded that it is hard to think about it clearly, still we should
>make the distinction between illegal content and the medium.
>
>Heck, when the subject first came up I even visited a few of the alleged
>groups to go and see for myself. I was very pleased to find pedophile
>stories posted there with a very effective disclaimer at the bottom that
>these children are *emotionally scarred* forever! And no, watching those
>pictures didn't make me a pedophile. [I am still a healthy heterosexual
>who seems to like women who are slightly (like five years) older as myself].
>
>By putting pedophiles (and childporn) into illegality, you also loose
>control over (and communication with) those groups of people. Control
>that is so very important!
>
>We tend to applaud everything that is done these days to increase our
>security. Like microphones in the streets of Groningen (Holland) to
>listen for trouble (like fights). Still what we gain in perceived
>security, we lose in our privacy and resources to provide safety.
>
>In fact, and I am going far here; I believe that by illegalizing
>childporn and filtering places known to have them, we are in fact
>/pushing/ the illegal providers and seekers of this content more and
>more into illegality making them do worse and worse things. I have read
>about Childporn rings where you could only become a member by providing
>your own childporn (in different degrees of severity).. I can imagine a
>pedophile raping someone he knows and making pictures of that just to be
>able to access the material in the Childporn ring..
>
>Wouldn't it have been better if he could have gotten those (illegal)
>pictures from a newsgroup instead? In this case the little girl would
>still be unharmed IMHO?!
Of course. I have no wish to harm my fav fems, but I do wanna see em doing
their thing (and mine!)
>Well, that's enough for now, I'll probably get flamed for this,
>Thomas
Maybe, but thanks just the same
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2005-05-20, 5:46 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
George Orwell wrote:
> In <42876C41.4010304@hccnet.nl.invalid>, nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> Of course. I have no wish to harm my fav fems, but I do wanna see em doing
> their thing (and mine!)
>
>
>
>
> Maybe, but thanks just the same
Let me restate that I think no-one under 12 years should have sexual
contact with anyone above or under that age. 16 years is more ambiguous
to me as such a child will most likely be more or less sexually
developed (but it would still be against the law!).
I think there is no excuse for exploiting a child sexually and such
people should be locked up for eternity. Still, it seems to me that the
active taking down of childporn all over the internet creates a niche
market for people willing to earn money over the childs psyches and
emotional development.
I do not object to pedophile newsgroups that are clearly marked as such
and I don't mind anonymous pictures are posted to them. I just don't
want to be bothered by it and I don't want any *NEW* pictures being
taken of innocent youghtfull victims as by definition it can *NEVER* be
consensual sex.
hth,
Thomas
- --
"I don't know, it just seems to be so incredibly beautiful. It's magic."
- - emmel, alt.games.creatures, may 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQo33RQEP2l8iXKAJAQEjrgMgjFnRW7eW
jtD1potOGSs5akPo/9wjUWlU
yX3n+jCfpCoDRx3I+99YjLtXs0xzuCnV9WAxqZig
oxnWbYgZNUc/g9EzbmmzbSt2
+gdD+W0PxjmP1qxUCNCzXh9hiijipDNAIWI1MQ==
=H+Nl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
|