Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Law Enforcement Requests for Net Data Multiply

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the big-brother-is-watching dept.

135

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "It's not just phone companies grappling with reported potentially privacy-intruding requests from the NSA and other branches of government: Banks, Internet-service providers and other companies that possess large amounts of data on their customers say that police and intelligence agencies have been increasingly coming to them looking for tidbits of information that could help them stop everything from money launderers to pedophiles and terrorists, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'According to AOL executives, the most common requests in criminal cases relate to crimes against children, including abuse, abductions, and child pornography. Close behind are cases dealing with identity theft and other computer crimes. Sometimes the police requests are highly targeted and scrupulously legalistic, while other times they were seen by the company as little more than sloppy fishing expeditions. AOL says that most requests get turned down.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Willy on Wheels declares victory over Wikimedia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15371821)

The Wikimedia Foundation, owner of WIKIPEDIA (on wheels), has failed to become a credible source. Do not use in slashdot links, citations or even for looking up star trek trivia. It is too dangerous. Willy on Wheels recommends you block Wikipedia indefinitely. Always add "-wikipedia" to your search engine queries, block en.wikipedia.org on you firewall. Mod down any Wikipedia link posts and bury any digg links to Wikipedia!
[X] Wikipedia has been blocked indefinitely from use by reputable academic, research institutions, media organizations per ruling of global professional users and/or editors. See the block log.
 
[!] Slashdot is a suspected sockpuppet of Wikipedia, and has been put on wheels.
Willy on Wheels will be launching an anti-Wikipedia site soon, and it will be more controversial than Wikitruth.info [wikitruth.info] !

Wikipedia, home to Lolicon, Autofellatio, Piss Christ, and friends!

Think about the... (2, Funny)

jginspace (678908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371829)

From the article: 'According to AOL executives, the most common requests in criminal cases relate to crimes against children, including abuse, abductions, and child pornography.

(insightful comment deleted during self-moderation)

Re:Think about the... (1, Redundant)

LookingNowhere (94099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371926)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

--Benjamin Franklin

Re:Think about the... (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371998)

I liked that quote when I first heard it, and I liked it the next 241 times, and I still agree with it completely, but by now can we please modify Slashdot to auto-mod it to -1, Ultra-Redundant?

Re:Think about the... (4, Insightful)

Jesus 2.0 (701858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372021)

Unfortunately, no, we can't yet do that. Obviously.

There are still far too many people who are all too willing to give up not only their liberty, but my liberty, just because some liar sells them a vague line about terrorism.

Re:Think about the... (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372057)

So obviously it didn't work the last 40000 times. 40001's the charm?

Re:Think about the... (1)

Jesus 2.0 (701858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372083)

Well, one thing is certain: Not 40001 is not the charm.

Re:Think about the... (2, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373140)

Just so we could get past the vague, liar thing, could you be more specific? Exactly what actual liberties do you think people are trying to take from you? Voting? Free speech? Free association? Freedom of religion? Any suggestion of quartering troops in your house?

As to the terrorism thing, the news [fbi.gov] there seems to be rather concrete [bbc.co.uk] , even if not well known [newsmax.com] , and at times disturbing [nationalreview.com] . There is nothing vague about this [theglobeandmail.com] at all.

Re:Think about the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15373215)

You seem to attach an awful lot of value to a few buildings in a city you've almost certainly never lived in.

If you are worried about dying... (2, Insightful)

mrraven (129238) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373302)

...stop eating fat burgers and leave MY freedom alone. 1 in 5 Americans dies of heart attacks every year. OTH as tragic as the deaths were on 911 for the families involved, compared to heart attacks, strokes, or auto accidents they are a drop in the bucket. If people would worry about the real killers and not curtail freedoms based on hype from demagogues the country would be in MUCH better shape,

Re:If you are worried about dying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15373439)

1 in 5 Americans die from heart attacks? So we lose 20% of our population every year? Or is it that 1 in 5 Americans deaths are caused by heart attacks?

Exactly which freedom? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373512)

If you are worried about dying....stop eating fat burgers and leave MY freedom alone.

Oddly enough, it in no way surprises me that you seem to think that the only reason somebody might oppose terrorism in general is that they are afraid of personally dying. (Terrorism, it's not bad... unless it effects me, eh?) By the way, ...exactly which freedoms that our Constitution guarantees do you think are being threatened?

As to terrorism vs heart attacks et.al., most people recognize the difference between the natural course of life, or the consequences of life style choices, and deliberate attacks by others. Individual Americans are free to live as they choose, and to take all manner of effective precautions against accidents or disease by themselves. That isn't really true about terrorist attacks. The only reason that there aren't more deaths and economic disruption from terrorism is that the US government actually takes steps to prevent it. Absent that, there would have been plenty more [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:Exactly which freedom? (1)

mrraven (129238) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373938)

Bullshit there is no way to entirely secure the U.S. at roughly 1000 miles by 2500 miles the total land area of the U.S. is 2,500,000 square miles. To completely secure the U.S. you would need a homeland security officer for every square mile, i.e. 2 million 5 hundred thousand, plus we'd have to search every single car, and every single house on a daily basis. If this isn't done then someone can drive a truck into the middle of city and blow it up, that's reality. Rather than spending billions on something we can't prevent and would turn us into a literal police state if we tried, far better to withdraw from the middle east entirely and work on energy independence so we aren't dependent on Muslim nations at all for anything. Withdraw from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, stop buying middle easter oil, and stop supporting Israel and ding the terrorism problem is 100% solved, how hard is that? As a bonus using less oil extends the time until peak oil and is better for the environment. Or we can keep driving SUVs, spend billions on useless terrorism prevention measures, keep supporting the aggressor state of Israel, and wind up with WWIII with Iran, Syria, etc, your choice.

And to the other poster that's 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S. of course:

"Heart Attack and Angina Statistics

2003 statistics for the United States show that coronary heart disease (CHD) is the single leading cause of death in America. CHD causes heart attack and angina.

        * Mortality -- 479,305 deaths in the United States in 2003 (one of every 5 deaths) (preliminary).
        * Incidence -- 1,200,000 new and recurrent coronary attacks per year. (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Atherosclerotic Risk in Communities [ARIC] Study, 1987-2000.) About 40 percent of people who experience a coronary attack in a given year die from it.
        * Prevalence -- 13,200,000 victims of angina (chest pain due to coronary heart disease), heart attack and other forms of coronary heart disease are still living (7,200,000 males and 6,000,000 females).
        * From 1993 to 2003 the death rate from coronary heart disease declined 26.5 percent, but the actual number of deaths declined only 9.9 percent.
        * Estimates are that 6,500,000 people in the United States suffer from angina.
        * An estimated 400,000 new cases of stable angina occur each year. (Framingham Heart Study, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute)
        * The estimated age-adjusted prevalence of angina in women age 20 and older was 3.5 percent for non-Hispanic white women, 4.7 percent for non-Hispanic black women and 2.2 percent for Mexican-American women. Rates for men in these three groups were 4.5, 3.1 and 2.4 percent, respectively.*
        * Among American adults age 20 and older, the estimated age-adjusted prevalence of coronary heart disease for non-Hispanic whites is 8.9 percent for men and 5.4 percent for women; for non-Hispanic blacks, 7.4 percent for men and 7.5 percent for women; and for Mexican-Americans, 5.6 percent for men and 4.3 percent for women.*

*Based on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999-2002), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics."

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?ident ifier=4591 [americanheart.org]

That means that 479,305/3,200 = 149.78 TIMES as many people die of heart attacks per year compared to terrorism and that is compounded year after year, in ten years you are literally a thousand times less likely to die of terrorism than a heart attack. That means that in less than 3 days, every 3 days we have a 911 of heart attacks, think about it. Than means the rational allocation of resources to actually prevent deaths in the U.S. is educating people about the dangers of fat burgers. Of course demagogues of BOTH parties would far rather use fear tactics to strip us of our constitutional rights and line their pockets with our tax dollars which are given out as crony contracts to fund homeland security. If you were truly conservative you would be TERRIFIED at the growth of the power of the state. I suggest reading anti-federalist # 74 (1788) that I have put on my web site

http://treefunk.net/forum/ [treefunk.net]

on the president as "military king" and then come back and respond after thinking hard about the implications of that essay.

4th amendment to be exact (1)

mrraven (129238) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374162)

By the way you asked: "By the way, ...exactly which freedoms that our Constitution guarantees do you think are being threatened?"

Specifically the 4th amendment of the bill of rights to the constitution which states:

" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/ [findlaw.com]

Ubiquitous spying is an absolute violation of our ability "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." Does that answer your question specifically and clearly about which freedoms are being violated by the war on terror in general and by listening in our phone calls without a warrant or any supervision what so ever, data mining our calling records without any supervision, and collecting information on our internet usage? What part of "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:Think about the... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373008)

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. --Benjamin Franklin [bartleby.com]

Michelle Malkin [michellemalkin.com]
The omission of those key qualifiers--"essential" and "little"-- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.

Claremont Institute [claremont.org]
These pseudo "civil libertarians" love to quote the venerable Benjamin Franklin (whose 300th birthday we celebrate this year) who said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But they quote him entirely out of context.

First, his statement appears in his "Historical Review of Pennsylvania," published in 1759 (not available on line), a decade and a half before the Revolutionary War broke out. He was warning that state's legislature against putting too much trust in royal governors during the French and Indian War. True, it was often quoted later, but the purpose was to criticize those who sought safety from occupying British armies, not those who cooperated with Patriot measures to secure everyone's liberties by winning the war!

Intercepting Communications [cia.gov]
The Continental Congress regularly received quantities of intercepted British and Tory mail. On November 20, 1775, it received some intercepted letters from Cork, Ireland, and appointed a committee made up of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Johnson, Robert Livingston, Edward Rutledge, James Wilson and George Wythe "to select such parts of them as may be proper to publish." The Congress later ordered a thousand copies of the portions selected by the Committee to be printed and distributed. A month later, when another batch of intercepted mail was received, a second committee was appointed to examine it. Based on its report, the Congress resolved that "the contents of the intercepted letters this day read, and the steps which Congress may take in consequence of said intelligence thereby given, be kept secret until further orders."...

Ferdinand, the conservative cat [conservativecat.com]
Before we go too far, it's worth noting that Franklin was talking about liberty, not privacy. There is a relationship between the two, but I find it strange that no one bothers to quote Franklin when we're talking about the liberty to choose how your children are taught or smoke cigarettes in public. Instead, he's used to protect us from the government trying to find out whether or not we're terrorists.

The truth is, the government must strike a balance between privacy and security. Reduced privacy leads to a certain number of innocent private lives disrupted and reduced security leads to a certain number of successful terror attacks. The NSA data mining effort did not take place in a vacuum: it actually stopped real terror plots.


Re:Think about the... (1)

TeraCo (410407) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373857)

This just in: 100% of child molesters agree with Ben Franklin.

Here they are at it again (-1, Offtopic)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371843)

They shouldnt start to police the internet, instead they should be giving the paedofiles real sentences.

Even if a pedo, stops stickin his shit on the net, it wont stop him from doin his deeds in the real life.

They should just chop their dicks of and leave us internet people alone.

Soon we will be back to 56k with everything we say and do resent to various authorities for auditing, and the net will gring back to a hault.

Online the methodone of pedophiles? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15371862)

Some say online pedophile activity, from illegal activity like real KP to mostly-legal stuff like cartoons and pedo hangouts, encourages real-world activity. Eliminate it and fewer adults will have sex with minors.

Others say it satisfies their need. Take it away and more adults will be in bed with young people.

My guess is it's a little of both.

Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372008)

I think the general "public" (including here) don't see the scale of the problem. I read on bbc news recently that they block around 30,000 attempts per day to access illegal pr0n sites. BT only have a few million customers, so the only conclusion is that a large percentage of their users attempt to view "underage sites" (I put that in quotes as I have not read the details of what they considered illegal).

Over the course of a year it's unlikely that it's the same 30,000 each day, so I'd assume a large percentage (maybe 10%+) at some point search for it.

I'm sure a maths genius could work out the spread or something.

of those 30,000 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372141)

How many were search engines, robots run by police agencies, bots from 0wned machines, and other automated programs? How many are from people following misdirected links like this fake latest patch to Windows [zoy.org] [Goatse pumpkin].

Of the remaining, how many are from people trying to figure out what all the hubbub is about or 14-year-olds who are about to get their computer privilages yanked when mom and dad find out?

The intersting number is not 30,000, but how many people are looking for illegal sites for illegal purposes week after week after week.

Re:of those 30,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372214)

I would guess that no search engine indexing spiders are hosted on the BT customer network, and I haven't really seen any "goatse"-ish links to child pornography or other flat out illegal material: if such exist, I expect they represent a truly miniscule amount of this traffic. Police spiders are probably connected to networks where their access to illegal material is not blocked, otherwise their endeavours would be sort of pointless. If bots retrieve child pornography, then surely this is a case of someone actually intentionally downloading it for illegal purposes, but concealing it by not using a direct download from their own machine? If you bots that download child pornography to incriminate the owner of the infected machine, then I'd guess that would be a pretty rare scenario as well. (Pretty damn devious idea for a virus, though.)

People downloading child pornography to "find out what all the hubbub is about" should probably find some other way to find out what all the hubbub is about. Possession of child pornography is illegal in most countries; I doubt that excuse would stand up in court in any of them.

Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (2, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372451)

No, you don't understand what is going on here.

An organization called the "Internet Watch Foundation" has got a contract from BT to censor their customers' web access. They are lobbying the government for a law that would force every ISP in the country to use their censorship service (and, presumably, pay for it).

Of course no one would take them seriously if they said there are only 2 or 3 child porno sites on the web. So it is in their own interests to spread FUD about this subject by blocking as many sites as they can get away with. Given that most pornographers advertise pictures of "young girls" (who would want to look at pictures of old women?) it must be pretty easy to make up a list of sites to block, and no-one is likely to want to appear to support paedophiles by challenging them. In any case, like all good censors they keep their block list secret.

The government has got a strong motivation to go along with anyone who is calling for all ISPs to be forced to install censoring software, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear of these people going from strength to strength in the future.

Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373244)

Of course no one would take them seriously if they said there are only 2 or 3 child porno sites on the web. So it is in their own interests to spread FUD about this subject by blocking as many sites as they can get away with.

Well, you might finding a few facts about the Norwegian blocking then. The block lists are managed directly by the Norwegian police, which don't have any economic incentive to spread FUD. But perhaps it's easier to come up with a good conspiracy theory than accept the most obvious answer...

Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (1)

Bill6635 (976108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373237)

I think the general "public" (including here) don't see the scale of the problem. How many of you would be aware that in most western countries you could be convicted of distributing child porn if you upload to photobucket a photo of your toddler showing his/her bare backside or genitals... A simple challenge for those who believe child porn is all over the net; google the term "naked boys" and see how many pages of links you have to plough through before you find a site that actually has a pic of a naked boy under the age of 16 on it. Betcha don't find one...

Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372241)

If you want to take the full discussion, there's also a lot of other concerns:

What would childrens' exposure to kiddie porn be, if it was legal? (Oh right, we've got laws on porn today so nobody gets to see porn before they're 18. My bad)

Tracking of actual perps, today you can use the kiddie porn laws to make people rat on their sources. If it's legal, you have no leverage.

Legal films would also change the whole distribution to bring in real companies that could make money on distribution. More money in distribution = more money to producers which can provide somethign to distribute.

This is not a "let's try it, if it doesn't work we can go back" experiment. A large number of vids would quickly appear from various shady countries around the world, which would flow on P2P and the like forever.

Which "online pedophile activity"? (3, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372348)

from illegal activity like real KP to mostly-legal stuff like cartoons and pedo hangouts


If by "real KP" you mean pictures or films of children engaged in sex, I don't think there is any such stuff. Even in the Freenet, which has been accused of being a pedophiles hangout, you don't see any authentic child pornography. The closest you get to child pornography in the internet are women with small breasts and shaved pubic hair who could be any age between 16 and 30.


This "pedophilia in the internet" meme is actually more disgusting than adults having sex with children. Because a true pedophile can only harm a limited number of people, whereas the people who keep bringing the fear of pedophiles are the meanest evil bastards one can find in the world. They want to turn the natural instinct of any normal human being to protect their children into a tool for domination.


Politicians who keep insisting on this subject are only trying to find a way to become dictators. Just check them, they are the same kind of people who insist on any possible safeguard against "terrorism" and people who keep calling file copying "piracy" and want to enforce DRM by legislation.


History has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot open a door to censorship, because once you have it, who will be able to verify if a story was banned because it went against morality laws or because it told an embarassing truth about someone in power?

Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372417)

While "real KP" may be a myth and is certainly rarer than one could get the impression of, there is indeed much "pedophile acticity" on the internet. Their highly organized [freespirits.org] and long-standing community includes message boards [boychat.org] , blogs [blogspot.com] , link directories [boylinks.net] , podcasts [libsyn.com] , radio stations [surequalityradio.org] , and more.

Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (1)

Bill6635 (976108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373182)

When a sub-group in any society is vilified and ostracised they will always organise and form a community. It's human nature. You want us off the net, the solution is simple, remove stupid age of consent laws based upon the erroneous assumption that no-one under the age of 18 is interested in sex. It's utter baloney and everyone knows it. Age of consent laws are about control, not protection.

When you have the ridiculous situation of pre-schoolers being carted away in handcuffs by police simply for engaging in a bit of mutual exploration in the washroom, you know things have gotten out of hand, and this is happening now in the US in particular.

The idea that a child has no interest in sex is a myth, as anyone who is honest with themselves and has any recollection of their own childhood will admit. While there are unscrupulous people (men and women) who will abuse the trust of a child to coerce or force them to have sex, that is rape. The age of the victim is irrelevant. Age of consent laws are plainly ridiculous and unnecessary. If a child wants to explore their sexuality with an older person, why shouldn't they?

Rape is rape, regardless of age, and those who commit rape deserve to be punished. Those who do so repeatedly deserve to be severely punished, but lets all be honest instead of deluding ourselves that all kids are completely sexually naive. Just think back to your own childhood.

Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (1)

computational super (740265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373567)

Rape is rape, regardless of age, and those who commit rape deserve to be punished.

I've often suspected (being far too lazy to do any research and instead relying on pure conjecture) that the primary reason age of consent laws and statutory rape were established was to protect minors from the difficulties of an actual rape trial. No reasonably sane person can say that a fourteen-year-old girl can't consent to sex (although people like to say so on the internet often and say so in the media non-stop), but what if she didn't? Then she has to defend her accusations at a rape trial. That's a brutal thing to put onto a young girl (or boy, as the case may be). And it just gets worse as the vicitm gets younger.

On the other hand, the penalty for otherwise consentual adult/minor sex seems far out of proportion to the actual act. It's not really something I worry about much myself (if 14 year olds were legal, they'd be turning me down just like the 18 year olds), but I almost always find myself empathizing with the abuser when I hear about these sorts of things. It seems like it would be a horrifically difficult temptation to resist (if the opportunity presented itself), and the punishment is by far the most draconian in existence. Using internet forums as my gauge, it would appear that general society views having sex with children as worse than, say, killing them, kidnapping them, torturing them, beating them, starving them, etc. This seems somewhat irrational to me.

Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15373825)

No reasonably sane person can say that a fourteen-year-old girl can't consent to sex (although people like to say so on the internet often and say so in the media non-stop), but what if she didn't? Then she has to defend her accusations at a rape trial. That's a brutal thing to put onto a young girl (or boy, as the case may be).


with caveats, this works for the Canadians.

Protecting kids (1)

Bill6635 (976108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374062)

But the AoC laws don't in any way protect kids in way shape or form from anything whatsoever. Not from abuse, nor from having to give evidence in a trial. What those laws are doing is making criminals of kids as young as 10 who are placed on a sex offenders register for LIFE. Also quite often the child is happy with the relationship, so the destruction of that relationship causes substantial mental trauma. If a relationship, even a sexual relationship, between an adult and a child is not abusive or coercive, who is being hurt? Most of the time, even for quite young kids, genuinely consensual sexual interaction is educational, not harmful. In many instances it's even beneficial, especially for a child who comes from an abusive home and needs to feel wanted.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

Cernst77 (816740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373861)

I agree 100%.. never have I violated the law and had sex with anyone underage. I am just stating that the attitude towards sex in this society needs some SERIOUS adjustment. I think it should be added to the bill of rights that if ONE TWO or more people agree on use of parts of thier bodies for pleasure, the LAW should STAY OUT OF IT!!!!

Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15373888)

If by "real KP" you mean pictures or films of children engaged in sex, I don't think there is any such stuff. ... The closest you get to child pornography in the internet are women with small breasts and shaved pubic hair who could be any age between 16 and 30.
All you're saying is that you've been fortunate enough NOT to stumble across the real stuff.

Your entire line of thought is based on the flawed notion that "real KP" doesn't exist.

To believe otherwise is to blind to the obvious. Go browse through Usenet if you honestly think everyone who claims "real KP" exists is lying.

There's a reason many Usenet services don't offer certain newsgroups. Heck, some Usenet services specifically advertise that they have 'banned' newsgroups.

Re:Which "online pedophile activity"? (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374204)

If by "real KP" you mean pictures or films of children engaged in sex, I don't think there is any such stuff.

No, it exists [cbsnews.com] , hence the arrests:
AP) Police in seven European countries struck Tuesday at a sophisticated child abuse and pornography ring dubbed "Shadowz Brotherhood," arresting 50 people and seizing computer equipment, CD-ROMs and videos, authorities said.

Police described the images created and distributed by the group as some of the most shocking they had ever seen. Members of the ring allegedly broadcast live pictures of abuse on the Internet and posted images of children, including babies, being sexually abused and tortured.

"In terms of the kind of material they are posting and allowing access to, it's the worst group I have ever encountered," said Detective Chief Supt. Len Hynds of Britain's National High-tech Crime Unit, which coordinated a yearlong investigation with the European police organization Europol.

I wouldn't suggest you go looking for it.

This "pedophilia in the internet" meme is actually more disgusting than adults having sex with children.

If you really believe that, your values put you in a very tiny minority, and near some very unsavory people.

Because a true pedophile can only harm a limited number of people, whereas the people who keep bringing the fear of pedophiles are the meanest evil bastards one can find in the world.

This [myfloridalegal.com] guy had hundreds of pictures, which means hundreds of victims:
TALLAHASSEE - Attorney General Charlie Crist today announced the arrest of a Clay County convicted sex offender for violating his probation. Authorities arrested Robert Reed, a registered sex offender since 1999, after receiving a tip that he had child pornography on his computer and was distributing it over the internet. The case will be prosecuted by the Attorney General's Office of Statewide Prosecution.

A joint investigation by the Attorney General's CyberCrime Unit, the FBI Cyber Crime Task Force and the Florida Department of Corrections Probation and Parole Services revealed that Reed, 26, placed pornographic videos on the internet and made them available to others online. A search of Reed's computer was conducted, unearthing hundreds of images of child pornography. Reed was arrested by officers with Probation and Parole Services.


Children for sale [msn.com] documents an enormous problem.

The FBI [fbi.gov] documents an enormous problem:
Dr. Hernandez concluded that 76 percent of the child pornographers or travelers (those who travel or intend to travel interstate for the purpose of having sex with a minor) who participated in his study admitted to having committed contact sex crimes which went undetected by the criminal justice system. These offenders had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. In fact, this group of offenders admitted to having molested a combined total of 1,433 victims without ever having been detected. That is not 1,433 more offenses - - it is 1,433 more victims. If you factor in the number of times they offended against each individual victim, the number would be significantly higher. In addition, while Dr. Hernandez' study lumped child pornographers and travelers in the same category, his data shows that the number of undetected sex crimes was significantly higher for child pornographers than it was for travelers. In short, child pornographers, who consisted of 49 of the 62 subjects, were responsible for the vast majority of the 1,433 victims reported for that group.


History has repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot open a door to censorship, because once you have it, who will be able to verify if a story was banned because it went against morality laws or because it told an embarassing truth about someone in power?

Yes, there is the continual danger of people confusing pamphlets opposing war, globalization, threats to freedom of religion, ill-considered insurance regulations, or reports of a politician taking bribes with photos of 3 year old child being raped by a 50 year old man. Fortunately there are a few farsighted people like you who recognize that the average person can't tell the difference and warn us.

Re:Online the methodone of pedophiles? (1)

LookoutforChris (957883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372434)

I say let them keep their online haunts, anything to keep Michael Douglas from robbing the craddle!

Of course, the argument goes... (1)

Grendel Drago (41496) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373428)

My guess is it's a little of both.

So you're saying that child pornography has no net effect. Huh.

The argument, of course, goes that if pedophiles were to get organized and spread an idea that would preseve and even increase their access to child porn, it would be precisely the second one above. "No, really, it helps me."

That doesn't discredit it, of course, but it certainly raises suspicions...

Re:Here they are at it again (0, Flamebait)

transami (202700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371900)

Yes. The "catch and release" policy on pedophiles is sickening. I beleive they do this as a way to increase their power and money. I.e. As long as there is a problem, something "must be done" about it. What get's done then is the slow errosion of our rights and taxes.

Though the actions of pedophiles is sickening to contemplate, we should be careful about passing judgement. Obviously most of these people are being driven by some distorted sexual drive. I think the best thing to do is build a few micro-societies --small enclosed towns, where they must go live out their lives, and not be able to leave except under rare exception and supervision. This way, they can live productive lives, without children around to tempt them, and we do not have to foot the incarsiration bill.

Re:Here they are at it again (0, Flamebait)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371909)

even better would be to send those, paedofiles to places like iraq.
the used to send people like the to australia didnt they.
im sure bein in iraq would be a very good deterent from them commiting leud acts to the local kids.

Re:Here they are at it again (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372015)

Send people who break the law to a lawless land? If they gave the skills and savvy to adapt, it might be just what they were hoping for.

Re:Here they are at it again (1)

NoNsense (6950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372162)

Now there is a threat.... forget WMDs. The US wants to spread democrary, our version includes bombing the hell out of your country and occupying it for the next decade, or we'll just send the latest crop of rapists, murderes, thieves and pedos.

Good thinking.

Re:Here they are at it again (2, Interesting)

LookoutforChris (957883) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372450)

Might work out too well, the Arabs actually have a long tradition of pederasty [wikipedia.org] . It's not unusual for a older Arab man to have relations with a pubescent boy, sort of like the Greeks.

Maybe if we sent them to North Korea [wikipedia.org] instead?

Seriously though, the scenario where some "undesireable" sect of a society is to be scooped up and stuck on island/all killed/all put in jail/etc. is ignorant.

To quote Nietzsche: "Even the most harmful man may really be the most useful when it comes to the preservation of the species; for he nurtures either in himself or in others, through his effects, instincts without which humanity would long have become feeble or rotten. Hatred, the mischievous delight in the misfortune of others, the lust to rob and dominate, and whatever else is called evil belong to the most amazing economy of the preservation of the species. To be sure, this economy is not afraid of high prices, of squandering, and it is on the whole extremely foolish. Still it is proven that it has preserved our race so far."

Also, in the West, please try 'n make a distinction between Ephebophilia [wikipedia.org] and true Paedophilia [wikipedia.org] . At the very least it will make you sound smarter.

To quote Nietzsche: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372492)

"The state is the coldest of all cold monsters, coldly it tells lies and the largest of these is, we the state are the people."
From: "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

Re:Here they are at it again (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374232)

The "catch and release" policy on pedophiles is sickening... I think the best thing to do is build a few micro-societies

Good call. We should quarantine all those sickos who are attracted to teenage girls and keep them away from the rest of our virtuous society.

All those perverts lusting after nubile 16 year-old girls. Disgusting.

56k? Back in my day sonny.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372000)

Now listen here sonny, back in my day we used teletypes to get on the internet. If we were very lucky they were 110 baud. To get to and from the server those bits had to walk 500 feet in the snow. Uphill. Both ways.

Kids these days, they have everything and just don't appreciate it.

Re:Here they are at it again (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372230)

Remember: It's not illegal to be a pedophile.

Again: It's not illegal to be a pedophile.

It is not illegal to be attracted to women younger than 18.

See, I would really like to see the de-stigmatization of normal, healthy, male attraction. I'd also like to see people remember that it is not criminal.

People seem to forget, you see: With all this talk about punishing pedophiles, when pedophilia itself is actually the norm, and in no way illegal.

I'm not saying we should take the "18" rule away. Rather, I believe we should make it stronger, by admitting (perhaps even celebrating) in the first place that men are attracted to younger women, de-stigmatizing it. With that acknowledged, you can then say: "But, there are these horrible effects if you do anything, so therefore..."

And, don't be shy: Make your case. Be realistic. Say: "While, sometimes, relationships between 16 year olds and 40 year olds works out- it's too difficult to sort out the cases where it does and does not work out. So, it's just illegal."

Have some maturity about this. It'll make our society a much more sane place.

If you pushed down the age of the label "pedophile" to, say, 13, you'll have a much greater pool of people in social opposition to pedophiles, and you'll mentally de-criminalize the vast majority of men.

Re:Here they are at it again (1)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372324)

Some people distinguish between child molestation and statutory rape and pedophilia and ephebophilia. But the fact remains that it is unpopular to advocate that rational thought or contemplation should be considered at all when dealing with such problems. From my limited experience, fewer people have a torches and pitchforks attitude toward even genocide than pedophilia.

Re:Here they are at it again (1)

sitarah (955787) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373960)

"But the fact remains that it is unpopular to advocate that rational thought or contemplation should be considered at all when dealing with such problems. From my limited experience, fewer people have a torches and pitchforks attitude toward even genocide than pedophilia." Agreed. I've tried to discuss whether the sex offender registry is 'fair' with my mother, and I can literally see the wall of disgust arise behind her eyes. It's amazing how well the idea of pedophilia can blind the public. That Amber Alert law slipped some things by. The Supreme Court, in 2002 and AGAIN in 2004, decided that the banning of 'simulated child pornography' in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. Quote from wikipedia: "The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."" Funnily enough, in 2003 - between 2002 and 2004, note - President Bush passed the Amber Alert law, a law that banned simulated child pornography. People have been convincted for drawing *cartoons* of children having sex, even though the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional. I imagine this slipped by because the rest of the bill was just so public-friendly and so anti-sex offenders. Oh, it also sanctions wire-tapping and the watching of 'other communications' in child abuse/kidnapping/sex cases. I wonder if the language of the above Amber Alert point would permit a police group to demand records from AOL and then take them to court if they refused.

Re:Here they are at it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374216)

The reason that people get more pissed off about pedophiles is because most people actually have kids. Most people in America aren't too worried about being victims of genocide. Objections to genocide are intellectual and moral. Objections to pedophilia are visceral, emotional, and moral.

Re:Here they are at it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372366)

It's not illegal to be a pedophile.

It is not illegal to be attracted to women younger than 18.


Keep in mind that this has little to do with pedophilia. Pedophiles are primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children (12 or so and down). Hebephiles are primarily attracted to adolescent females (13-18 or so). Most heterosexual men have some level of sexual attraction to young females, but for most, this attraction is not their primary, and there is little or no emotional attraction. These men are not hebephiles (or pedophiles).

Your assertion is right, though, that pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia are not crimes. In fact, they do not at all depict any action. People who have these orientations (or "persistant, long-term patterns of sexual and emotional attraction" if you don't want to call them "orientations") should not be persecuted simply for that personal attribute (they are, but that's another debate). And people who sexually abuse other people should be legally persecuted without regards to whatever sexual orientation they may have (especially since we know that by far most child sexual abusers are in fact heterosexual men primarily attracted to same-aged women ("situational offenders"), and not "pedophiles").

Re:Here they are at it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372855)

Again: It's not illegal to be a pedophile.
It is not illegal to be attracted to women younger than 18.


I'm a little confused by your post. A pedophile is someone who is so threatened by secondary sexual attributes they are only attracted to the prepubescent. This is the apex of being fucked up. Anyone who doesn't understand this is a bozo.

AOL!!!111 (5, Insightful)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371848)

Nice to see an honorable company like AOL standing up to the government.

Wait... wasn't the goverment supposed to be protecting the people from corporations?

Re:AOL!!!111 (1)

4e617474 (945414) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371953)

That was when the government was run by people who could tell the difference. You know, before the "CEO President".

Re:AOL!!!111 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372017)

Wasn't the goverment supposed to be protecting the people from corporations?

Now, that was before corporations became persons before the law. Now the government exists to protect those from the people, and to grab more power for themselves and their friends. Didn't you get that memo?

Re:AOL!!!111 (2, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372043)

Wait... wasn't the goverment supposed to be protecting the people from corporations?

No, corporations aren't inherently evil structures we should be protected from.

The government should basically put some rules where people and the organisations they create can have mutual interest, and create a predictable repeatable processes that aid for development of life standard, science advance and so on.

And people's part of the equation is to aid the government in this process and protect themselves from governments that don't do this by voting accordingly.

Governments rarely have proper priorities these days, but people also don't do anything about it. So you can say people deserve what they get.

Not so long ago, average people dying in masses for their beliefs and making a better future wasn't so abnormal, right now we're focused or being able to pay that house and car installment, and to hell with rights and beliefs.

Re:AOL!!!111 (1)

mOdQuArK! (87332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373586)

No, corporations aren't inherently evil structures we should be protected from.

Any organization (corporate or government) with a high concentration of resources has a high probability of being "evil" (I prefer the larger-coverage term of "dangerous"), simply because minor screwups or negligent/incompetent decision-making (setting aside actual maliciousness for the monent) are magnified by the sheer amount of resources that such orgnizations have available.

When a small group of entities has the resources necessary to destroy a community's economic equilibruim (especially when those entities have no particular vested interest in the welfare of that community), then that community is going to be in deep sh*t sooner or later.

Society would be much healthier & adaptable if there were an emphasis on supporting individuals & small organizations, rather than the wholesale bigger-is-better mentality going on nowadays.

Re:AOL!!!111 (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372066)

I wish there was a mod of "stupid" because that is what this post is.

If you think the gov't is there to "protect" you against anything, let alone corporations, you must have been brain dead your entire life.

Re:AOL!!!111 (1)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372335)

I'm pretty sure the federal government is there to protect us from foreign threats and invasions.

Re:AOL!!!111 (2, Insightful)

greenrd (47933) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372558)

So anyone who isn't an anarchist is brain-dead their entire life??????

Re:+3 insightful? wtf. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15373493)

So anyone who isn't an anarchist is brain-dead their entire life??????

That's not anarchism, it's american style democracy. We give rights and protections to the government, they don't give it to us. We're supposed to protect ourselves using government as a tool.

I would say over-use of question marks and poor knowledge of history is a good indicator of being brain dead...

How would they do that? (3, Insightful)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371849)

Law enforcement on the internet is really hard because there's not just one country in the world. How do you deal with a nigerian scammer if you live in France, or with a russian spammer if you're in Greece? There's not much anyone can do, in these cases.

Re:How would they do that? (1)

pasamio (737659) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372144)

or with a russian spammer if you're in Greece?

Well we know Russian spammer and Israel now, you end up shutting down your company...poor guys.

US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (-1, Offtopic)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371882)

Check THIS OUT:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060520/ap_on_go_co/ai r_marshals [yahoo.com]

"WASHINGTON - More needs to be done to ensure the anonymity of federal air marshals, says a critical new report Congress will look into next week.

The report also faults the service for requiring marshals to stay at designated hotels and show their credentials upon checking in. It said that in one instance, the Sheraton Fort Lauderdale Airport Hotel in Florida designated the service "company of the month" because of the number of rooms it had reserved at the hotel."

How LAME can the security services policies BE?

Requiring the officers and marshals to present credentials upon arriving at check in. Just a few years ago, this was brought up about agents and air marshals showing their credentials upon check-in at airports, too. I suppose this was to get them past security or in preferential seats or to help them scan the planes when they boarded fresh-boardings or layover/connecting flights, or maybe to spell the long-flight marshals.

Man, when will the station administrators and chiefs or whatever they are called learn?

Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371890)

Oh, forgot this:

"Anonymity of the air marshals in our No. 1 concern," Adams said. "But the boarding of air marshals is set by federal regulations, which Congress sets."

Talk about CONgress being the opposite of PROgress...

sighs....

Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372381)

what really needs to happen is multiple "versions" of Air Marshalls
1 the current Brass Band and Parade version
2 a covert/sleeper version (in this case would only act if the BBP one got taken out)
3 the MIF deep cover version (would be trained to do take downs quietly)

it would be a big surprise for #criminal if he found out that the cute little angel he just grabbed just happened to be an Air Marshall.

Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372515)

Except there could be 4 layers of 'ooooh scary criminul Bad Guys(TM)'- the first 3 used to expose the 3 layers of air marshalls and the final layer to do the biz

Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15371927)

Why is anonymity such a concern? The air marshal should be openly armed and placed in the open where he can be seen by as many people as possible as well as see as many people as possible. Sure, this might make him a "target", but of all the people on the plane, he's the only one equipped to defend himself from an attack. Put his back against a bulkhead in a raised seat where he can see over everyone's head, and he should have no problem doing this.

Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372289)

If properly trained, you can kill or at least disable another human with a pencil in a few seconds. Air marshals must be anonymous or behind a protective wall so they have time to react.

Re:US Air Marshals "Company of the Month" (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373686)

No, no, this is NOT off-topic. You are NOT using your imagination and mental faculties.

You fail to see the clearly illustrative IRONIC point here: The government and law enforcement are reigning over people and reigning in individual control over privacy data and demanding more access.

The government agencies are trying to clean up the public and yet don't even have their OWN HOUSE in order. Have you missed the subtle irony?

Yet, they are NOT doing much to protect THEMSELVES from the obvious: an air marhall presenting credentials in a lobby or an air terminal in the presence of WHO KNOWS.

Be a little bit more judicious with your slasher god powers and pay attention to the links, however tenuous they may be....

Realize that the demand for "Net data" is not the ONLY avenue by which public and private people are at risk.

If this doesn't infringe upon 'free' speech nothin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15371911)

New powers granted to the government under the Patriot Act mean that Washington can secretly access people's records from businesses without having to provide any notification or seek a judge's permission. Companies are in fact prohibited by the law from disclosing that they had received such requests. What on nature's blue earth is going on there? Who was it said that the gov needed revolution every 50 years or so just to sift out the rot? Decadent, insidiously decadent.

Hmmm (5, Funny)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 8 years ago | (#15371955)

TFA: "We have a very rigorous review process here," said John Ryan, AOL's vice president and associate general counsel. "Every request that comes in from law enforcement is vetted ..."

*ping* - * You have 1 new subpoena(s) *

[LokkAtMeAOL] lol
[Atturny1] lollerskates
[LokkAtMeAOL] read it..
[Atturny1] lol
[Atturny1] whos it from
[Atturny1] oops
[LokkAtMeAOL] WHAT WHAT HAVE YOU DONE
[LokkAtMeAOL] MY LETTERS WON'T GO SMALL HELP
[Atturny1] noob lol
[Atturny1] o man i deleted it
[LokkAtMeAOL] ME TOO

Clinton and Nixon (3, Insightful)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372001)

Clinton and Nixon were one of the worst abusers of governmental information gathering. Both of them used the FBI to dig up dirt on their opponents. There's a story of Nixon extorting a contribution for his re-election by threatening the contributor with an IRS audit if the contribution wasn't large enough.

Both political parties decry the others abuse of governmental power but think it's just fine when they're the ones doing the abusing. Its behavior like that that drives some people to call for smaller government.

Re:Clinton and Nixon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372062)

This is the first I have heard of Clinton using the FBI for this. Is there evidence, or are you just repeating what you have heard on Fox News?

Re:Clinton and Nixon (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373234)

Just google '"fbi files" Clinton' . The Clinton Whitehouse had several hundred FBI files that they had no business having access to.

I voted for Clinton both times but by 2000, I shared Hamilton Jordan's (Carter's Chief of Staff) view that Clinton is a grifter. The Marc Rich bribe/pardon was right up there with Nixon's suitcases of cash.

Re:Clinton and Nixon (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372270)

I've not heard of Clinton abusing the FBI.

Frankly, I'd be surprised he would have been able to get away with that, given the troubles the Republican party gave him throughout both his terms. You'd think it would have been all over the news, trumping the whole Monica Lewinsky thing. And a much better reason to impeach him.

Re:Clinton and Nixon (1)

llbbl (822233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372373)

Clinton and Nixon were one of the worst abusers of governmental information gathering.

Your necon republican FUD is not appreciated.

Re:Clinton and Nixon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372507)

Clinton and Nixon were one of the worst abusers of governmental information gathering.

Well, besides the fact that that is not even remotely true, it appears you cannot count. Perhaps you mean to say they were "two" of the worst abusers?

Re:Clinton and Nixon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372514)

Clinton and Nixon were one of the worst abusers of governmental information gathering.

Don't you mean "two of the worst abusers?"

In any case, along with the rest of the reactions to this post regarding Clinton, I'm going to cover my eyes and ears and say "Nyah nyah nyah. I can't hear you."

I guess it was OK when their guy was doing it, and will be again when their guy is in power.

Re:Clinton and Nixon (3, Insightful)

Brightest Light (552357) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372842)

I don't think it's got anything to do with people sticking their heads in the sand, but rather asking the OP to back up their claim with actual facts. Who among the other posters in this thread said that what Clinton did was OK?

Most everybody has heard of Nixon and Watergate and his abuses thereof, but I've not heard of Clinton pulling anything of that magnitutde. I too would like to see some kind of proof to substantiate the OP's claim about Clinton being "one of the worst abusers of governmental information gathering". Put up or shut up, it's that simple.

I don't take this stance because I have any real love for the former president (I think he was a coward and a sleazeball), but because I have love for the truth. The OP made a non-obvious claim, and now they need to back it up with proof - that has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats or party preferences. It's a simple matter of intellectual honesty. If Clinton ranks up there with Nixon in terms of government information gathering abuses, I'd like to know exactly what he did. I'd like to see verifiable proof to back up this claim, as would many others, it would seem. That's really not too much to ask from somebody making such a claim.

Re:Clinton and Nixon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374193)

Most everybody has heard of Nixon and Watergate and his abuses thereof, but I've not heard of Clinton pulling anything of that magnitutde. I too would like to see some kind of proof to substantiate the OP's claim about Clinton being "one of the worst abusers of governmental information gathering". Put up or shut up, it's that simple.

You don't remember the hundreds of FBI files that were uncovered in the White House during Clinton's reign? "Filegate", I think they called it. Of course, the liberal media let Clinton off with the ol' "beaurocratic snafu" defense.

OK Slashdot... (5, Funny)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372056)

Please turn over the identity of the poster with the initials "AC". He or she is implicated in over 10,000 threats against the government and Microsoft.

Re:OK Slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372211)

Fools! You'll never catch me! I have 12 underground caches with arms for 5 small armies. I could survive off the grid for 18 years.

Just wait till I bring down the country by destroying microsoft. Then we'll see who... hold on. Someone's at the door....

Re:OK Slashdot... (2, Funny)

LLuthor (909583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372268)

Hey now! Leave Alan Cox alone!

IP Address (1)

bradams (241228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373082)

Ok, the ip address for Anonymous Coward is 127.0.0.1

What are we? (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372061)

Are we independent beings? Or did we turn into something of a higher order, cells in a big organism, where the government is our brain?

And if it's the latter, can you deny the brain the right to check its body blood levels, have a haircut and take a bath?

What if the brain decides to make a suicide in the name of all of us?

Re:What are we? (2, Interesting)

dugjohnson (920519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372187)

I'd like to believe the former, but I am becoming more convinced that the latter is becoming our guiding paradigm, although whether this organism is higher is a question for me.

I've always noted that there are herd people and loner people....as the latter I use the term cow and wolf, but a herd person might use a different analogy....say, team and terrorist.

Herd people like a herder and are willing to put up with a lot to be led. Right now, I am afraid, the U.S. of A has gotten comfortable enough that there are a LOT of herd people. In the beginning of this grand land o' ours, it was the loner's who stepped out and worked hard and kept moving because they didn't like having a neighbor that they could see. Now we revel in mosh pits, raves and Times Square on New Year's Eve.

Staying with your analogy, I suppose that there is the societal body, then a few of us independent bacteria who don't mess things up too badly and may even help a little, but at the first sign of indigestion get wiped out with an antibiotic.

Here's hoping the moon station opens soon.

Re:What are we? (2, Insightful)

3waygeek (58990) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372390)

Are we independent beings? Or did we turn into something of a higher order, cells in a big organism, where the government is our brain?

Certainly not the brain -- I'm thinking either the armpit or asshole depending on which party's in power.

thiGs Is goatsex (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372086)

turned over to 7et

Bank Secrecy Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372132)

There are already regulations they can use to get all sots of information.
Acording to Wikipedia it was passed in 1970 and it is used for certain transactions where the teller is supposed to fill out a Suspicious Activity Report that is transmited to the Finantial Crimes Enforcement Network under the Department of the Treasury, and yes, the treasury people share this info with other government agencies.

Now... (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372160)

Sometimes the police requests are highly targeted and scrupulously legalistic, while other times they were seen by the company as little more than sloppy fishing expeditions. AOL says that most requests get turned down.

...why is this the job of the ISP? Why is a private entity that's deciding the legitimacy of these requests? If you want a good example of the intimacy between government and corporations in the US, this would be it. This should be subject to a legal review by someone in the judicial branch, not some private employee after corporate guidelines.

I see a disturbing trend in the US, based on this and other cases of domestic spying, guantanamo bay and more. That is the reduction of the judicial branch to be nothing more than courts to process individuals and corporations. The courts are not to interfere with what the government is doing or try to apply the law to the government.

The United States is moving away from the ideals it was founded on with a division of power into the executive, legislative and judicial branch. The judicial branch is being reduced to nothing more than a tool to enact the law without oversight of the other branches. The legislative branch represented by Congress has been granting more and more power to the executive branch to act without oversight both from them or the courts. The "Patriot" act is a good example of that. Even when there are issues that seem suspect at best, Congress don't want to touch the issue.

So two branches are in bed with each other, the last shoved out on the street. Few if any "checks and balances" within the government. What about the final check, the democratic oversight through the free press, public information and such? For one there's so much information that's no longer accessible, the media is completely unreliable (I've seen the stats on what Amercians think happened in the Iraq war) and third the people are so afriad there's a terrorist lurking at every corner to think it's okay anyway.

And just to invoke a certain law - remember how 'na' in nazism stands for nationalism, and that the terrorists serve much the same purpose as the jews did - according to the government, there's this large and dangerous network/conspiracy out to destroy your way of life. You'd better put all power in the hands of the government and chant "USA! USA! USA!". Or was that "Sieg Heil"?

Re:Now... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372859)

Because of the simple reason that they're just requests. Just like an cop asks you if he can search your house. You don't have to say yes. If he wants in, he needs an warrant.

Same thing with AOL, if the cops wants information, they need a warrant, or a subpoena to turn over information. Without those, its up to AOL to decide if they want to release the information VOLUNTARILY.

Now go away and learn the law, become a lawyer and knock some sense in those judges.

Most Get Turned Down (3, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372266)

Sometimes the police requests are highly targeted and scrupulously legalistic, while other times they were seen by the company as little more than sloppy fishing expeditions. AOL says that most requests get turned down.

Hmmm - phone records and postal mail are covered by law. It's against the law for the post office to turn over your mail, or the phone company to allow a wiretap, without due authority. Hence the EFF lawsuit against AT&T.

That is not the case (AFAIK) with, for example, credit card records (unless you've filled out the privacy request form). What about email and surfing records? "AOL says that most requests get turned down." Is that just their choice? Should it really be just somebody at AOL's choice? What if your ISP is run by one of the, "If you're not doing anything illegal, you've got nothing to fear" people? Do they have the right to just turn over your information?

As for the credit card records - those are already for sale, I think. Advertisers buy them, right? That's why casinos I've never been to send me stuff in the mail. So... if there's a bunch of data that is already legally available - what do you think the odds are that the gov't already has it? Good, I'd say. That is - I'd bet size cash the gov't already knows about my occasional trips to Las Vegas and my penchant for cheesy spy novel audiobooks.

Just my random tinfoil hat thoughts.

Re:Most Get Turned Down (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372664)

That is not the case (AFAIK) with, for example, credit card records (unless you've filled out the privacy request form).

wtf? I can fill out a "privacy request form" and thereby ensure privacy of my credit card records? I've never heard of this; it must be the best-kept secret around! Could someone please elaborate further?

I am reporting all disgusting posts! (1, Insightful)

Edna_Bambrick (973247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15372404)

I am aiding Law Enforcement in cleaning up the internet. Keep it clean or you will be REPORTED!

Report THIS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372871)

Yeah?

Fuck you. Fuck you right in the ear canal. How do you like that?

I have been trolled.

Re:Report THIS (1)

Edna_Bambrick (973247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373828)

REPORTED!

Not all got turned down? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15372554)

Sometimes the police requests are highly targeted and scrupulously legalistic, while other times they were seen by the company as little more than sloppy fishing expeditions. AOL says that most requests get turned down.

I understand if there is an official investigation and the much needed paperwork that is required by law. However never-ever should they hand over any information voluntaily.

I have worked at a Internet Provider in Belgium and either the police came with the paperwork, or they got noting. Once they came into the office, because one person thought they were for him prsonaly and they were escorted out again and had gotten no information wahtsoever.

An other time they tried social engineering their way through the helpdesk. Bzzzt. No go. I need a piece of paper or you get nothing.

However I am not sure how often they succeeded. Now you try to do the same. Social engineer infornation and then claiming later that you just asked and it was the problem of that individual that he gave up information.

These case should be looked at as hacking attacks and attempts to steal idetities. Unfortunatly all our nase already belongs to them.

Re:Not all got turned down? (2, Interesting)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 8 years ago | (#15373882)

I work part-time at a mid-sized family inn in Rhode Island, and one day while I was working the front desk, I answered a call from (supposedly) a police investigator from a nearby town attempting to ascertain if a particular person or her aliases had been a recent guest. Being a small family inn with a cantankerous old lady who doesn't put up with crap and isn't a particular respecter of authorities other than herself as the owner, we take privacy quite seriously and so I asked if he had a warrant. He said no, so politely declined his fishing expedition and told him that he could go get a warrant and either show up personally or fax a copy over.

I had never before or since heard a cop sound more absolutely shocked than he did. He asked why we required a warrant, and I started belting off the reasons that came to mind, starting with the fact that it would help a rgreat deal in proving that he was actually who he said he was (at hotels, we deal with all sorts of crap with people, mostly wives, fleeing abusive relationships and those bastards can be crafty in trying to track their victims down). It was quite apparent that the thought of us saying no to his request had never even entered his mind, which in turn indicates to me that the vast majority of companies and what-not put up no resistance whatsoever to these sorts of requests unless a direct interest of theirs is harmed. And that alone scares the crap out of me.

The postscript of the story was fairly banal. He was in fact a cop and he did eventually end up getting a warrant and it turned out that one of our guests was a convicted petty thief who was fleeing another prosecution. And of course she was polite and a model guest while she was there, which in the end is really all that I find myself caring about when they stay at the inn.

The issue is, what is public record information? (1)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374012)

Should searches you type in be considered public records or somehow less protected? Google isn't your lawyer. I'm all for privacy laws, but there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but its NOT a troll. Its a serious question and a real world situation. I've already put on my virtual gnomex bunker gear and SCOTT pack (it matches my real gnomex bunker gear and SCOTT pack) and am "fully encapsulated" so don't bother with the flame throwers.

Here's a valid concern --

I'm looking through my web logs tonight, and in particular I'm browsing the search engine queries that bring people to my site. I'm curious about such things. Anyway, two of the queries really bugged me. These are just today over the course of a few hours. One was "12 year old girl pics" and the other was "preteen 9 - 12 girl pics".

I had posted a blog entry with pics of my 12 year old kicking butt on the soccer field. There's nothing about these that would invite tampering or whatever, they snapshots from a distance and I'm sure both these "people" will be dissapointed. The fact is this blog entry generated two disturbing hits within just the few hours that I was looking at. Ugh.

So, what's a DAD to do with information like that? Don't answer, its not your decision -- It was a rhetorical question.

The important question is, what should Google do with information like that? Does someone using a search engine like that have an expectation of privacy? If so, why?

On what basis can using a search engine come with an expectation of privacy? When search on the net, I have the assumption that there is no privacy. Were I to really want privacy I suppose I could use an anonymizer, but I don't so I don't (if you see what mean).

Re:The issue is, what is public record information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15374197)

Searching for '9-12 girl pics' or whatever isn't illegal and isn't even incriminating.
There is an entire industry of non-porn sites out there that serve up nude or non-nude pictures of young girls not engaging in sex or lewd exhibition of their genitals, thus totally legal. Simple nudity is not illegal and you can find photo albums with nude children in most Barnes and Nobles. See childsupermodel.com for example. Sure there are forces who would love to shut it down but it is Constitutionally protected. BTW child porn nearly was Constitutionally protected in a split decision in which Justice Oconner was the deciding vote the ban was allowed to stand. THe dissenting opinion used the " If the first amendment means anything it is that government has no business telling a man what films he may watch or what books he may read in his home." Well Justice O'conner isn't around anymore and there is a chance that in the future child pornography decision could be reversed believe it or not.

Re:The issue is, what is public record information (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 8 years ago | (#15374215)

Does someone using a search engine like that have an expectation of privacy? If so, why?

I believe they do, because no matter how revolting the search terms that lead someone to your site may be, you can never expect to stop someone from looking at normal pictures, nor should you be able to.

Perhaps there were a few sickos looking at pictures of girls playing soccer and getting off on it. Perhaps not. There may have been people watching in person while the game was being played and having perverse, impure thoughts. We will never know, because we can't read minds. Nor should we be able to. It may be very upsetting to you as her father, but your daughter remains unharmed whether people were having perverse thoughts or not.

With all of this pedo-scare in the media/culture recently, I get the feeling that people are just aching to prosecute thought-crimes. Bad thoughts do not necessarily = bad deeds. If you start using search terms to back up investigations (or to base investigations on), search engines will become sanitized, useless husks of what they once were. I don't want to be paranoid every time I type in a search term (for instance, looking for perfectly legal Girls Gone Wild videos could easily be misconstrued with the wrong terms).

Were I to really want privacy I suppose I could use an anonymizer, but I don't so I don't (if you see what mean).

Do you mean that if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?