Government vs. The Internet
20 June 2013, 09:59 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government vs. The Internet
Sorry to be picking on them again, but I have to laugh at Cameron's attempts to regulate the Internet.
While I do genuinely commend him on his desire to make images of child abuse much harder to access via the Internet I think once again we see a government failing to grasp how the Internet works or what it is. It simply cannot be regulated in its current form... end of!
The latest talk about trying to prevent access to Tor and other Deep Web servies that provide complete anonymity for their users by limiting the use of the technlogy they employ is noble, but a dangerous folly. Without the technology these services use a lot of other things would cease to work such as ecommerce transations or communcations between various factions of our military for instance. The Internet doesn't differentiaite between 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' as far as its technology goes!
Finally until someone proves to me that looking at images of child abuse turns someone into a paedophile or makes a paedophile more likely to carry out physical offences then I would rather the money being spent on this be spent arming the police forces with the tools and traning to catch these people!
While I do genuinely commend him on his desire to make images of child abuse much harder to access via the Internet I think once again we see a government failing to grasp how the Internet works or what it is. It simply cannot be regulated in its current form... end of!
The latest talk about trying to prevent access to Tor and other Deep Web servies that provide complete anonymity for their users by limiting the use of the technlogy they employ is noble, but a dangerous folly. Without the technology these services use a lot of other things would cease to work such as ecommerce transations or communcations between various factions of our military for instance. The Internet doesn't differentiaite between 'the good guys' and 'the bad guys' as far as its technology goes!
Finally until someone proves to me that looking at images of child abuse turns someone into a paedophile or makes a paedophile more likely to carry out physical offences then I would rather the money being spent on this be spent arming the police forces with the tools and traning to catch these people!
20 June 2013, 10:35 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
20 June 2013, 10:39 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No of course not and where have I said that? Those sort of images are obviously undesirable and in a perfect world with a bottomless budget it would be great to get rid of them.
My point though is that I have never in all my life looked at or tried to look at a child abuse image.... because I have no interest in them and that's because I am not a paedophile. I am pretty damn sure that any normal person seeing these sort of images would be disgusted and I don't believe that viewing them can 'turn anyone into a paedophile'. It is the tail wagging the dog to think that, people who are paedophiles will seek these images out, normal people won't become paedophiles by looking at them in the unlikley event they see them in the first place!
So given that paedophiles are the ones looking for these images the next question is can viewing them drive them to commit a physical act of abuse. Well there is no evidence to support this theory just as there isn't any evidence to support the idea that viewing **** makes you more likely to be a rapist or viewing violent films can turn you into a murderer.
If that evidence becomes available then obviously more effort in removing such media becomes a priority, but until then we have to assume that paedophiles will do their thing regardless of whether they see images or not. And to be fair it's not as if the Internet community isn't already doing what it can to prevent these sort of images being easily available.
I just think the money would be better spent on the police so they can have the training and manpower to catch these people. There have been a lot of successful prosecuations recently as the polcie are learning how to catch paedophiles, but there is clearly a long way to go and that is where I think any money should be targeted!
My point though is that I have never in all my life looked at or tried to look at a child abuse image.... because I have no interest in them and that's because I am not a paedophile. I am pretty damn sure that any normal person seeing these sort of images would be disgusted and I don't believe that viewing them can 'turn anyone into a paedophile'. It is the tail wagging the dog to think that, people who are paedophiles will seek these images out, normal people won't become paedophiles by looking at them in the unlikley event they see them in the first place!
So given that paedophiles are the ones looking for these images the next question is can viewing them drive them to commit a physical act of abuse. Well there is no evidence to support this theory just as there isn't any evidence to support the idea that viewing **** makes you more likely to be a rapist or viewing violent films can turn you into a murderer.
If that evidence becomes available then obviously more effort in removing such media becomes a priority, but until then we have to assume that paedophiles will do their thing regardless of whether they see images or not. And to be fair it's not as if the Internet community isn't already doing what it can to prevent these sort of images being easily available.
I just think the money would be better spent on the police so they can have the training and manpower to catch these people. There have been a lot of successful prosecuations recently as the polcie are learning how to catch paedophiles, but there is clearly a long way to go and that is where I think any money should be targeted!
Last edited by f1_fan; 20 June 2013 at 10:40 AM.
20 June 2013, 10:46 AM
#7
a teacher has just been jailed for having 4000 images and 10 hrs of videos of abuse of children as young as 9 yrs old. do you think hes a paedophile? would you like to leave your 6yr old child with him after hes sat for hours looking at his child abuse pictures? your talking semantics to say just looking at pictures doesnt make you a paedophile. ive seen pictures of murder victims and your right it hasnt made me a murderer. but i dont have 4000 images of murder victims on my hard drive either.
Trending Topics
20 June 2013, 10:56 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a teacher has just been jailed for having 4000 images and 10 hrs of videos of abuse of children as young as 9 yrs old. do you think hes a paedophile? would you like to leave your 6yr old child with him after hes sat for hours looking at his child abuse pictures? your talking semantics to say just looking at pictures doesnt make you a paedophile. ive seen pictures of murder victims and your right it hasnt made me a murderer. but i dont have 4000 images of murder victims on my hard drive either.
Yes or No?
20 June 2013, 11:04 AM
#9
so you DO think hes a paedophile then? according to you just because he looked at them doesnt make him one? im sure you have to agree someone with that amount has an unhealthy interest in the abuse of children? looking at **** pictures doesnt make you a rapist, but, if you have 4000 **** images of women being raped then im sure you will agree thats an unhealthy interest in the subject too.
20 June 2013, 11:10 AM
#10
I think the point being made is that these pictures didn't necessarily turn the teacher INTO a paedophile, he already was one. He didn't start out normal, and then look at the pictures, and then become a paedophile.
20 June 2013, 11:10 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so you DO think hes a paedophile then? according to you just because he looked at them doesnt make him one? im sure you have to agree someone with that amount has an unhealthy interest in the abuse of children? looking at **** pictures doesnt make you a rapist, but, if you have 4000 **** images of women being raped then im sure you will agree thats an unhealthy interest in the subject too.
So are you saying if he hadn't had access to those and downloaded them to his computer he wouldn't have been a paedophile then?
Yes or No? <------------ This is real easy
20 June 2013, 11:12 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ergo we should spend the money catching them rather than on the fruitless task of trying to remove such imagery from the net!
Last edited by f1_fan; 20 June 2013 at 11:14 AM.
20 June 2013, 11:13 AM
#13
Whether or not that is true I am not sure, I am happy to be proven either way, but I've not seen any evidence yet. Same argument is made for violent video-games turning happy-go-lucky kids into gun-toting killers.
20 June 2013, 11:28 AM
#14
your still talking semantics here. from that viewpoint you could say that it is actually a good thing that these images are out there otherwise he would never have been caught and identified as a paedophile if they werent? because he was one before he had access to the images? making it harder for his kind to access and view that sort of material can only be a good thing.
20 June 2013, 11:37 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your still talking semantics here. from that viewpoint you could say that it is actually a good thing that these images are out there otherwise he would never have been caught and identified as a paedophile if they werent? because he was one before he had access to the images? making it harder for his kind to access and view that sort of material can only be a good thing.
Last edited by f1_fan; 20 June 2013 at 11:38 AM.
20 June 2013, 11:44 AM
#16
Even if one is a pedophile, if you do nothing about it (not even download pictures), then you've done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, (and maybe technically you're not even a pedophile?), but once you start doing these things you are directly or indirectly leading to kids being abused.
20 June 2013, 11:47 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sort of.
Even if one is a pedophile, if you do nothing about it (not even download pictures), then you've done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, (and maybe technically you're not even a pedophile?), but once you start doing these things you are directly or indirectly leading to kids being abused.
Even if one is a pedophile, if you do nothing about it (not even download pictures), then you've done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law, (and maybe technically you're not even a pedophile?), but once you start doing these things you are directly or indirectly leading to kids being abused.
20 June 2013, 11:52 AM
#18
i asked you if you thought he was a paedophile and you didnt answer either? who can say? how do you know that it wasnt looking at the images that turned him onto paedophilia in the first place? thats the point you cant can you? so lets make it as difficult as possible for these people who already are or have an unhealthy interest in these images from accessing them.
20 June 2013, 12:06 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i asked you if you thought he was a paedophile and you didnt answer either? who can say? how do you know that it wasnt looking at the images that turned him onto paedophilia in the first place? thats the point you cant can you? so lets make it as difficult as possible for these people who already are or have an unhealthy interest in these images from accessing them.
So you'd rather spend the money on a futile effort to rid the net of child **** than spend it on trying to actually catch these people and you are prepared to entertain the notion that viewing child **** can turn you into a paedophile when there is zero evidence to support your theory.
In my opinion said teacher is a paedophile which is why he sought out those images and kept them. You on the other hand seem to think that if he hadn't had access to them he may have turned out to be a good sort and quite fit to teach people's kids.... that I cannot agree with!
Last edited by f1_fan; 20 June 2013 at 12:07 PM.
20 June 2013, 12:23 PM
#20
good. we both agree hes a paedophile. but im not confusing symptoms with cause at all. i never said that viewing child **** makes you a paedophile. i also never said if he didnt have access to them he might have turned out to be a good sort either. symptom and cause go hand in hand. im saying he might have been into it before he was looking at the images or he might have afterwards but your thinking is we dont know which it is so lets just leave the images there for them to access?
20 June 2013, 12:50 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also talk like a politician... very emotive expressions like "lets' just leave them there for them to access".... you talk like we are just not doing the obvious and taking them off the equivalent of a noticeboard.
The point Cameron and you don't get is you can chuck hundreds of millions of pounds at this and it will make virtually no difference... you cannot regulate the Internet as it currently stands so let's spend the money elsewhere on something that will have an effect and has already been proved to... that is providing more resource for the police to catch these people!
It's not rocket science, it's obvious!
20 June 2013, 12:55 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
and "outsourcing" it to the internet industry -- with the focus on the (fruitless) task of getting rid of the images, sorry not really BT or Googles job, although they obviously have a role to play
barking mad dogma
http://www.trefor.net/2013/06/18/mar...safety-summit/
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/a...g-the-watchers
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/06...isps-to-block/
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 20 June 2013 at 12:59 PM.
20 June 2013, 01:10 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the REAL backstory here is that the Government are cutting the funding of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOp's) which does great work in actually hunting down the monsters and perverts responsible for this stuff (provider and consumer) and putting them in the dock
and "outsourcing" it to the internet industry -- with the focus on the (fruitless) task of getting rid of the images, sorry not really BT or Googles job, although they obviously have a role to play
barking mad dogma
http://www.trefor.net/2013/06/18/mar...safety-summit/
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/a...g-the-watchers
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/06...isps-to-block/
and "outsourcing" it to the internet industry -- with the focus on the (fruitless) task of getting rid of the images, sorry not really BT or Googles job, although they obviously have a role to play
barking mad dogma
http://www.trefor.net/2013/06/18/mar...safety-summit/
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/a...g-the-watchers
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/06...isps-to-block/
20 June 2013, 01:25 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
As with anything technology/Internet related, it was not just this government, the previous one was just as bad
total ignorance coupled with "market" dogma = disaster
total ignorance coupled with "market" dogma = disaster
20 June 2013, 01:42 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While a noble effort it may be to try and eradicate child **** on the internet it would be difficult to do unless there were draconian filters etc in place where everything was monitored in detail. Child **** screening today, tomorrow someone will want to eradicate all **** or other things they don't agree with. Of course there was never any children being abused and killed before the internet the same as no women were ever assaulted before it either.
I think the government would quite welcome monitoring everything you do in minute detail. I even heard the moronic phrase "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" uttered by a minister regarding the holding of email communication.
I think the government would quite welcome monitoring everything you do in minute detail. I even heard the moronic phrase "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" uttered by a minister regarding the holding of email communication.
20 June 2013, 01:47 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While a noble effort it may be to try and eradicate child **** on the internet it would be difficult to do unless there were draconian filters etc in place where everything was monitored in detail. Child **** screening today, tomorrow someone will want to eradicate all **** or other things they don't agree with. Of course there was never any children being abused and killed before the internet the same as no women were ever assaulted before it either.
I think the government would quite welcome monitoring everything you do in minute detail. I even heard the moronic phrase "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" uttered by a minister regarding the holding of email communication.
I think the government would quite welcome monitoring everything you do in minute detail. I even heard the moronic phrase "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" uttered by a minister regarding the holding of email communication.
20 June 2013, 01:57 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
I agree at some level with what the OP is saying. I'm all for arresting anyone actively seeking or posting abuse images - and anyone that looks for them is clearly in need of help - but unfortunately it's pointless trying to regulate something that is "un-regulateable".
Going a step further, it is not as far as I'm aware illegal to own and download images of brutally murdered people and I'm sure a few sickos out there have hundreds if not thousands of these images. Are these people safe? Should the law treat them differently because it would appear that it does.
I know for a fact you can post some pretty horrific stuff online and it is not illegal in any way shape or form. If this encourages weirdos to act on their fantasies then we have a real problem.
Going a step further, it is not as far as I'm aware illegal to own and download images of brutally murdered people and I'm sure a few sickos out there have hundreds if not thousands of these images. Are these people safe? Should the law treat them differently because it would appear that it does.
I know for a fact you can post some pretty horrific stuff online and it is not illegal in any way shape or form. If this encourages weirdos to act on their fantasies then we have a real problem.
20 June 2013, 02:13 PM
#29
Also, I don't see the point in blocking child abuse images, if the purpetrators are still out there actually DOING it.
While there are pedophiles in the world, children will be abused, whether images are uploaded on the internet or not. Banning/blocking such images a non-sequitor as far as I'm concerned.
While there are pedophiles in the world, children will be abused, whether images are uploaded on the internet or not. Banning/blocking such images a non-sequitor as far as I'm concerned.
