New State Law Put ISPs and Libraries at Risk

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Click the "Back" button, the "Home" button, or even the button with the "X" on it: and the "evil bad image that makes you feel all icky" goes away. No need to waste state funds protecting the retinas of the innocent as long as eyes have lids.

But now you're also burdening me with the responsibility of actually "parenting" my children. Your solution means I have to pay attention to my children, and actually take an active role in their lives. And, at some point, I may have to explain things to them, like why people take pictures of themselves with no clothes on, possibly while rubbing up against each other. I don't think that's something I'm interested in doing.

The world wide web was designed as an opiate for the masses, something that would occupy my childrens' attention for hours at a time, freeing me up to eat cheetos and watch Dr. Phil. If something bad is on it, it's not my responsibility to ensure my children navigate away from it; it's the government's responsibility. I reject this notion of "personal responsibility".

[plib]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Click the "Back" button, the "Home" button, or even the button with the "X" on it: and the "evil bad image that makes you feel all icky" goes away. No need to waste state funds protecting the retinas of the innocent so long as eyes have lids.

Far too complicated. Much better to leave it to the government, ISP's, assorted pressure groups of dubious provenance and of course your friendly, local, multinational corporation to decide what you can see.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by teh603

I don't see "government desperation" here as much as big business desperation. I'd have a look at who was the real author of the bill. If its anything like Stand Your Ground, it probably came from a business PAC through a sock puppet legislator. Big business . . .

Repitition is not evidence. Here is the list of people who testified in favor of the bill in the Washington State Senate*:

Mike McGinn, Mayor of Seattle
Tim Burgess, Seattle Councilmember
Gael Tarleton, Port of Seattle Commissioner
Jim Pugel, Seattle Police Department Assistant Chief
Linda Smith, former U.S. Congresswoman
Reverend John Vaughn, Groundswell, Auburn Seminary
Sean O'Donnell, King County Prosecutor
Brian Taylor, King County Sheriff Detective
Andy Conner, SeaTac Police
Leslie Briner, Youthcare
Nacole Svengard, mother of victim
Velma Veloria, former Representative
Emma Catague, Asian Pacific Islander Women' Safety Center
Megan McCloskey, UW Anti-Trafficking Task Force
Chris Johnson, Attorney General's Office
Sister Susan Francois, Intercommunity Peace and Justice Center
Kristin Harper, former victim
Rose Gunderson, Engage WA

None of these people sound to me like corporate shills. As for bill sponsors being corporate sock puppets, what corporation is that? And where is your evidence?

And what about bill opponents? The organization, Village Voice Media, which is suing to stop the bill from being implemented, is transparently organized as business corporation. I don't have to invoke a conspiracy theory about sock puppets there.

P.S. What business interest would be served by the bill? I suppose that if a man is with a prostitute, underage or otherwise, he isn't reading a big six book or watching CBS. Is that consistent with your thinking?

__________________
* As far as I can tell by googling, the Washington House did not hold a hearing. But if anyone can find a witness list for that, please post it.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

None of these people sound to me like corporate shills.

They don't sound like experts in the type of technology the law applies to either. Why are there no obvious experts on the technology that runs the internet on that list?

[teh603]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

None of these people sound to me like corporate shills. As for bill sponsors being corporate sock puppets, what corporation is that? And where is your evidence?

And what about bill opponents? The organization, Village Voice Media, which is suing to stop the bill from being implemented, is transparently organized as business corporation. I don't have to invoke a conspiracy theory about sock puppets there.

You aren't looking for companies directly; you're looking for super-PACs that act as a front for corporations and groups of them. Like the one that practically wrote the legislation that's the center of the Trayvon Martin flap. The big businesses have banks of lawyers who write bills, and then pass them up to legislators who received lots of campaign money from them. The bill's origin was all over the news; you should be able to find it easily enough.

P.S. What business interest would be served by the bill? I suppose that if a man is with a prostitute, underage or otherwise, he isn't reading a big six book or watching CBS. Is that consistent with your thinking?

__________________
* As far as I can tell by googling, the Washington House did not hold a hearing. But if anyone can find a witness list for that, please post it.

Big business has more to gain from abuse of something like this, than to lose from it. How many websites with non-criminal content could be taken down by malicious reports, to be replaced by a Big Business-controlled alternative? How many prosecutions would result from those malicious reports, based on how few there have from the DMCA?

You also failed to address what happens when someone turns a botnet computer into a child porn repository. From what I remember, there have been convictions (although last time I heard anything those convictions were being appealed) even though the owner of the computer had no knowledge that his computer was being used that way, and wouldn't have consented.

[carpetmojo]

"..........well when its put in such black and white terms, i'm going to side with the child pornographers. i'm not saying it doesn't exist but i think its a massively overblown issue ............"

I'm sorry, but I feel that's about one of the saddest statements to make, if it means what I read it to mean.

First, how can anyone side with child pornographers, whatever civil
liberty or whatever, might be at threat ?
How can you equate the two for goodness sake........

And then to admit it goes on, and semi-excuse it by offering the suggestion that child pronography is massively overblown ?

What ?
Every single incidence on-screen represent at least one child betrayed by adults, taken advantage of, degraded, and their childhood stripped away for ever.

So, just what number of such incidences is OK, and therefore acceptable, and doesn't warrant trying to stop the practice - and what's the number where it becomes acceptable to attempt it ?

ONE is too many.

And just because it's difficult to do, does that mean it shouldn't be attempted ?

[plib]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

"..........well when its put in such black and white terms, i'm going to side with the child pornographers. i'm not saying it doesn't exist but i think its a massively overblown issue ............"

I'm sorry, but I feel that's about one of the saddest statements to make, if it means what I read it to mean.

First, how can anyone side with child pornographers, whatever civil
liberty or whatever, might be at threat ?
How can you equate the two for goodness sake........

And then to admit it goes on, and semi-excuse it by offering the suggestion that child pronography is massively overblown ?

What ?
Every single incidence on-screen represent at least one child betrayed by adults, taken advantage of, degraded, and their childhood stripped away for ever.

So, just what number of such incidences is OK, and therefore acceptable, and doesn't warrant trying to stop the practice - and what's the number where it becomes acceptable to attempt it ?

ONE is too many.

And just because it's difficult to do, does that mean it shouldn't be attempted ?

I don't approve of child pornography, nor do I approve of half-assed attempts to stop it, and attempts by all and sundry to wrap whatever half-baked scheme they've come up with in a "what about the children?' mantra.

You want to get serious about child pornography? One is too many? Fine.

Public castration for users.
Public flaying for the perpetrators.

That I'd vote for.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by plib

I don't approve of child pornography, nor do I approve of half-assed attempts to stop it, and attempts by all and sundry to wrap whatever half-baked scheme they've come up with in a "what about the children?' mantra.

You want to get serious about child pornography? One is too many? Fine.

Public castration for users.
Public flaying for the perpetrators.

That I'd vote for.

Agreed. It's like saying that if I'm against the war, I don't support the troops, or I'm not a patriot. How about we organize our resources more efficiently, offer better training to law enforcement, come up with better/more tools to effectively combat the crime (and the actual criminals), rather than use thinly disguised censorship which will not actually make one iota of difference with regards to the manufacture, possession or distribution of CP? Because it's easier to do it this way; it makes it look like we're actually doing something.

[Ken Maltby]

In the case of the Seattle legislation:

You have a situation where some engaged in activity that you have local ordinances
against. They are advertising their existance and providing contact information.
So... your best idea to catch these violators is to shut down the sites? Have you
considered the old adage "Follow the Money", anything bought through the internet
creates an electronic trail that has to interface with legitimate financial institutions,
who will respond to a subpoena. When you arrest the last criminal putting up their
site(s), the sites will be gone. If a new criminal starts that sort of operation you
have a good chance of finding it, and them.

As to these efforts in general:

Of course, that wouldn't be the point if your real aim is to gain control over the ISPs
that provide for establishing all sorts of sites, for your own purposes.

Luck;
Ken

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Have you
considered the old adage "Follow the Money", anything bought through the internet
creates an electronic trail that has to interface with legitimate financial institutions,
who will respond to a subpoena. When you arrest the last criminal putting up their
site(s), the sites will be gone. If a new criminal starts that sort of operation you
have a good chance of finding it, and them.

I remember a Playboy article on what happened when someone tried following the monkey in regards to child porn. Its been a long time since I've read it, but from what I remember the author reached the conclusion that the US government was actually the biggest supplier of child porn thanks to all the federal agents posing as suppliers. This was decades before the modern internet, though, so things might or might not have changed.

As to these efforts in general:

Of course, that wouldn't be the point if your real aim is to gain control over the ISPs
that provide for establishing all sorts of sites, for your own purposes.

I'm still not convinced that this isn't a super-pac setup. Fund a politician's campaign, then tell him that he has to stay bought by introducing various pieces of legislation which will demonize the government in the court of public opinion. That sparks public outrage and sympathy for small government politicians, who are also in a super-pac's pocket...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by teh603

I remember a Playboy article on what happened when someone tried following the monkey in regards to child porn.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by teh603

someone tried following the monkey

That sounds disturbingly like a sex act, itself.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by hrosvit

That sounds disturbingly like a sex act, itself.

Technically, you just followed the monkey...

[nogle]

Originally Posted by teh603

I remember a Playboy article on ...

There are articles?

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by nogle

Technically, you just followed the monkey...

Damn it. Now I feel dirty. And not in a good way.