UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn

IWF refuseniks under pressure

By Chris Williams

The Register, UK: 2 April 2009
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/02/eu_filtering_framework/

The European Union wants new laws that would grant national
governments the power to force ISPs to block child pornography.

The move would enable the Home Office to impose filtering technology
on small ISPs who say they cannot afford it, or argue it is
ineffective.

Article 18 of the proposal for an EU framework decision on "combating
the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child
pornography", states: "Each Member State shall take the necessary
measures to enable the competent judicial or police authorities to
order or similarly obtain the blocking of access by internet users to
internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography, subject
to adequate safeguards."

Once adopted, an EU framework decision obliges member states to bring
national law in line with its provisions.

Currently in the UK, all the major ISPs use the child pornography
blocklist curated by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). A
BT-developed system called Cleanfeed checks IP addresses against the
list and blocks users from accessing their content.

Last month, child protection charities complained that some 700,000
internet connections in the UK served by small ISPs were still able to
access material on the IWF blocklist. They pointed out that in 2006
the Home Office had pledged that it would tell all providers to
implement filters by the end of 2007.

However, small ISPs such as Zen have so far resisted government
pressure to filter voluntarily. They cite the expense of new hardware
needed to run the system. They also argue minimal technical knowledge
is required to circumvent the "politically motivated" IWF blocklist
and that it has no effect on the trade in images of abuse.

The NSPCC believes the reduced chance of accidental exposure to child
pornography via a filtered internet connection reduces the risk of
offending. "We know from our work with offenders that it can often
start with an accidental exposure and curiosity," policy advisor Zoe
Hilton said recently.

Today, Malcolm Hutty, president of EuroISPA, which represents ISPs
from across Europe at the EU, called on the Council to drop proposals
for filtering to be made compulsory, arguing it would "increase risks
to the security, resilience and interoperability of the internet".

"For technical reasons, blocking simply cannot provide the level of
protection that is necessary, and simple morality demands that we take
strong collective action to get child pornography removed from the
Internet, rather than simply hiding behind national firewalls," he
added.

A Home Office spokesman refused to describe the UK's policy towards
the proposal. "We're not going to discuss this until the meeting of
the Council of Ministers," he said.

Ministers from each member state attend the Council to make policy
decisions for the EU. Justice and Home Affairs ministers are due to
meet on Monday, when it will discuss combating the sexual exploitation
of children. Framework decisions require unanimous approval.

The UK has been at the vanguard of internet filtering against child
pornography in Europe. Cleanfeed launched in 2004, while Germany
announced plans to create its own IWF-style blocklist only this
January.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:09:46 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:

> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn

Can't see any problem with that.


-- 
The Wanderer

That no one understands doesn't make you an artist.

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 22:44:07 +1100, The Wanderer   
wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:09:46 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
>> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn
>
> Can't see any problem with that.
>
>

It's completely ineffective, absolutely trivial to bypass.
It slows down the net when they put a high-traffic page (wikipedia 'virgin  
killers') on the list.
the list can never be even remotely complete.
Hiding the images doesn't prevent or stop any of the abuse from happening.
It drives the trafficing further underground (Torrents/other P2P) making  
law enforcement stings more difficult.
It gives parents a false sense of security.

Do you want any more reasons?
Arrest the bastards, don't just hide the abuse behind a sheet.
-- 
Lee

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:09:46 +0100, Cub Reporter 
wrote:

>The NSPCC believes the reduced chance of accidental exposure to child
>pornography via a filtered internet connection reduces the risk of
>offending. "We know from our work with offenders that it can often
>start with an accidental exposure and curiosity," policy advisor Zoe
>Hilton said recently.

And?  Are people who commit offences in such a way at all likely to
result in increased child abuse?  If not, there is no justification
for preventing such exposure unless the person being "protected from
accidental exposure" wants it.

My main objection to such censorship is that there are no controls or
checks to ensure that all the material being censored is in fact
illegal to possess.  When the list of censored material is kept
secret, it is inevitable that the mechanism will be hijacked to
prevent people seeing material that may be acutely embarrassing to the
government or other authorities, and eventually will, like China, be
used to ensure that the only Internet content that people have access
to is "on message" with the views the government want us all to have.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:44:07 +0100, The Wanderer
 wrote:

>> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn

>Can't see any problem with that.

The problem is not with the *stated objective*, but with the *actual
outcome*.  Which will *not* be to block child porn and nothing else.

-- 
Cynic

In uk.politics.censorship lee  wrote:

> It gives parents a false sense of security.

The problem is that those parents are the customers of the politicians
in question, and they crave that false sense of security.

FoFP

The Wanderer  posted
>On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:09:46 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
>> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn
>
>Can't see any problem with that.

It will certainly be very useful for the government to have the 
mechanism in place. You never know what it might be necessary to 
suppress next.

-- 
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:37:31 +0100, Big Les Wade 
wrote:

>>> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn

>>Can't see any problem with that.

>It will certainly be very useful for the government to have the 
>mechanism in place. You never know what it might be necessary to 
>suppress next.

What do you mean, "next"?  We have no way of knowing what they are
suppressing *now*.  Australia made the same claims about only blocking
child porn, but a recent leak of their blacklist showed that it was
heavily involved in political censorship as well.  Australia is not
usually regarded as being more illiberal than the UK.

-- 
Cynic

>
> Hiding the images doesn't prevent or stop any of the abuse from happeningPeople are still being done for using their credit cards to subscribe
to illegal sites.

Quite how does cutting off that revenue not help children that are
being abused for them.

>
> It drives the trafficing further underground (Torrents/other P2P) making  
> law enforcement stings more difficult.
>

P2P and torrents are trivial to police.

On Apr 3, 8:09 am, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn
>
> IWF refuseniks under pressure
>
> By Chris Williams
>
> The Register, UK: 2 April 2009http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/02/eu_filtering_framework/
>
> The European Union wants new laws that would grant national
> governments the power to force ISPs to block child pornography.
>
> The move would enable the Home Office to impose filtering technology
> on small ISPs who say they cannot afford it, or argue it is
> ineffective.
>
> Article 18 of the proposal for an EU framework decision on "combating
> the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child
> pornography", states: "Each Member State shall take the necessary
> measures to enable the competent judicial or police authorities to
> order or similarly obtain the blocking of access by internet users to
> internet pages containing or disseminating child pornography, subject
> to adequate safeguards."
>
> Once adopted, an EU framework decision obliges member states to bring
> national law in line with its provisions.
>
> Currently in the UK, all the major ISPs use the child pornography
> blocklist curated by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). A
> BT-developed system called Cleanfeed checks IP addresses against the
> list and blocks users from accessing their content.
>
> Last month, child protection charities complained that some 700,000
> internet connections in the UK served by small ISPs were still able to
> access material on the IWF blocklist. They pointed out that in 2006
> the Home Office had pledged that it would tell all providers to
> implement filters by the end of 2007.
>
> However, small ISPs such as Zen have so far resisted government
> pressure to filter voluntarily. They cite the expense of new hardware
> needed to run the system. They also argue minimal technical knowledge
> is required to circumvent the "politically motivated" IWF blocklist
> and that it has no effect on the trade in images of abuse.
>
> The NSPCC believes the reduced chance of accidental exposure to child
> pornography via a filtered internet connection reduces the risk of
> offending. "We know from our work with offenders that it can often
> start with an accidental exposure and curiosity," policy advisor Zoe
> Hilton said recently.
>
> Today, Malcolm Hutty, president of EuroISPA, which represents ISPs
> from across Europe at the EU, called on the Council to drop proposals
> for filtering to be made compulsory, arguing it would "increase risks
> to the security, resilience and interoperability of the internet".
>
> "For technical reasons, blocking simply cannot provide the level of
> protection that is necessary, and simple morality demands that we take
> strong collective action to get child pornography removed from the
> Internet, rather than simply hiding behind national firewalls," he
> added.
>
> A Home Office spokesman refused to describe the UK's policy towards
> the proposal. "We're not going to discuss this until the meeting of
> the Council of Ministers," he said.
>
> Ministers from each member state attend the Council to make policy
> decisions for the EU. Justice and Home Affairs ministers are due to
> meet on Monday, when it will discuss combating the sexual exploitation
> of children. Framework decisions require unanimous approval.
>
> The UK has been at the vanguard of internet filtering against child
> pornography in Europe. Cleanfeed launched in 2004, while Germany
> announced plans to create its own IWF-style blocklist only this
> January.

This is not about child porn and will not stop there. The government
is using popular excuses to tighten the ratchet on our freedoms and
consolidate more power for themselves.

How quickly people surrender their freedoms (from censorship) if it is
to punish evil pedos.

Yesterday, the criminals were gun owners, culminating in the idiotic
Snowdrop Petition to rid us of our evil guns. Eventually, even pepper
spray is now illegal to carry.

Today, the criminals are terrorists and child abusers. Cue (rightly)
overwhelming support against these evil people.

But tomorrow it will be whoever who dissents with the government. And
against which we will have nothing to fight back, no rights to
congregate, no rights to demonstrate and no free media to inform. Mark
my words.

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:41:45 +1100,  wrote:

>>
>> Hiding the images doesn't prevent or stop any of the abuse from  
>> happening.
>>
>
> People are still being done for using their credit cards to subscribe
> to illegal sites.
>
> Quite how does cutting off that revenue not help children that are
> being abused for them.
>
Quite how does a filter which is absolutely trivial to bypass (i.e. kids
of 12 are doing it in school to bypass restrictions/play games) cut off  
revenue?

The various governments trying these sorts of schemes seem to never have  
heard of:
proxies
VPN's
TOR
https
etc etc

>>
>> It drives the trafficing further underground (Torrents/other P2P)  
>> making  
>> law enforcement stings more difficult.
>>
>
> P2P and torrents are trivial to police.
public, *unencrypted* p2p is trivial to police :-)
and at least they currently need all that pesky 'burden of proof' rubbis


-- 
Lee

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:41:45 -0700 (PDT), allandetracy@live.co.uk
wrote:
>> Hiding the images doesn't prevent or stop any of the abuse from happening.

>People are still being done for using their credit cards to subscribe
>to illegal sites.

>Quite how does cutting off that revenue not help children that are
>being abused for them.

You assume that the people getting the money are the same as the
people who are abusing the children.  That is not a safe assumption to
make.

You also assume that censored ISP feeds will prevent people from
accessing such sites.  What it will in fact do is make it more
difficult to prosecute the people who do by forcing them to access it
via an untraceable proxy.  Put a stolen CC into the mix and you make
it impossible to trace who is downloading.

>> It drives the trafficing further underground (Torrents/other P2P) making  
>> law enforcement stings more difficult.

>P2P and torrents are trivial to police.

Only for users who take no steps to cover their tracks.  Again, the
use of proxies make it virtually impossible to identify either
uploaders or downloaders, because in that case there is no money trail
to follow and no way to trace the IP address beyond the boundary of
the proxy server.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Oppressed Subject
 wrote:

>How quickly people surrender their freedoms (from censorship) if it is
>to punish evil pedos.

>Yesterday, the criminals were gun owners, culminating in the idiotic
>Snowdrop Petition to rid us of our evil guns. Eventually, even pepper
>spray is now illegal to carry.

>Today, the criminals are terrorists and child abusers. Cue (rightly)
>overwhelming support against these evil people.

>But tomorrow it will be whoever who dissents with the government. And
>against which we will have nothing to fight back, no rights to
>congregate, no rights to demonstrate and no free media to inform. Mark
>my words.

Very true.  You also failed to mention that the ban on child
pornography was rapidly interpreted to include images that had no
sexual content, and recently censorship has been expanded to
criminalise images depicting bestiality and certain types of "extreme"
adult pornography.

-- 
Cynic

>
> The various governments trying these sorts of schemes seem to never have  
> heard of:
> proxies
> VPN's
> TOR
> https
> etc etc

We are talking here about people who are idiotic enough to hand out
their credit card details to criminals somehow I doubt hiding behind
proxies will concern them.

>
> You assume that the people getting the money are the same as the
> people who are abusing the children.  That is not a safe assumption to
> make.
>

I have no idea who does what to whom but cutting off the money supply
will ensure they do it less, unless you somehow know differently.

> Only for users who take no steps to cover their tracks.  Again, the
> use of proxies make it virtually impossible to identify either
> uploaders or downloaders, because in that case there is no money trail
> to follow and no way to trace the IP address beyond the boundary of
> the proxy server.
>

Most commercial suppliers of proxies keep detailed logs.

On 3 Apr, 15:41, allandetr...@live.co.uk wrote:
> > Hiding the images doesn't prevent or stop any of the abuse from happening.
>
> People are still being done for using their credit cards to subscribe
> to illegal sites.
>
> Quite how does cutting off that revenue not help children that are
> being abused for them.
>
>
>
> > It drives the trafficing further underground (Torrents/other P2P) making  
> > law enforcement stings more difficult.
>
> P2P and torrents are trivial to police.



1. There is no such thing as 'commercial CP'. The police know this.
Governments don't know this because they believe whatever rubbish the
police choose to tell them in the name of next year's budget.
2. The police find P2P and torrents far from 'trivial' - this is one
of their central concerns right now, because that is where they
believe real CP now lives. If you don't think there are LEA's camped
out in every torrent site from here to Timbuktu you are sadly deluded.
They are investing huge amounts of time and energy monitoring file
sharers. Some have suggested they have even planted 'honeypots' (bogus
files) on such sites. Whatever the truth, your casual dismissal of the
real extent of police interest in P2P and file torrents merely
highlights your own complete ignorance of the subject. This is the new
(international) frontier for LEAs in tackling online CP.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:13:19 -0700 (PDT), allandetracy@live.co.uk
wrote:

>> You assume that the people getting the money are the same as the
>> people who are abusing the children.  That is not a safe assumption to
>> make.

>I have no idea who does what to whom but cutting off the money supply
>will ensure they do it less, unless you somehow know differently.

Except that the "it" in question is *not* abusing children.

>> Only for users who take no steps to cover their tracks.  Again, the
>> use of proxies make it virtually impossible to identify either
>> uploaders or downloaders, because in that case there is no money trail
>> to follow and no way to trace the IP address beyond the boundary of
>> the proxy server.

>Most commercial suppliers of proxies keep detailed logs.

Bollocks.  It costs money to collect information, and a commercial
organisation will not do so unless it is of benefit to them or it is a
legal requirement of *their* country.  When a company is making money
by specifically providing an anonimising service, it would clearly be
against their interests to keep information that would make their
service useless.  If they *secretly* kept such information, the cat
would be out of the bag the very first time it was used in a criminal
prosecution, and the company would lose all of its customers
immediately.

As an example of the policy of just one such company:
http://www.steganos.com/support/faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=48&id=265&artlang=en

Note that the information collected (which is required by law) is of
no help in tracing a P2P uploader or downloader because no record is
kept of the destination IP address.  Nevertheless, using a proxy in a
country that does not have such laws may be safer.

-- 
Cynic

>
> Except that the "it" in question is *not* abusing children.
>

How do you know this?

With criminals, whenever money is changing hands, always expect the
worst not the best in human behaviour.

On Apr 3, 3:00 pm, Cynic  wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Oppressed Subject
>
>  wrote:
> >How quickly people surrender their freedoms (from censorship) if it is
> >to punish evil pedos.
> >Yesterday, the criminals were gun owners, culminating in the idiotic
> >Snowdrop Petition to rid us of our evil guns. Eventually, even pepper
> >spray is now illegal to carry.
> >Today, the criminals are terrorists and child abusers. Cue (rightly)
> >overwhelming support against these evil people.
> >But tomorrow it will be whoever who dissents with the government. And
> >against which we will have nothing to fight back, no rights to
> >congregate, no rights to demonstrate and no free media to inform. Mark
> >my words.
>
> Very true.  You also failed to mention that the ban on child
> pornography was rapidly interpreted to include images that had no
> sexual content, and recently censorship has been expanded to
> criminalise images depicting bestiality and certain types of "extreme"
> adult pornography.
>
> --
> Cynic

Why, thank you for pointing that out, Cynic. It is refreshing to see
amongst the morass of sheep who have had the wool pulled over their
eyes, another man who hasn't swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Cynic  posted
>
>What do you mean, "next"?  We have no way of knowing what they are
>suppressing *now*.

At the moment, though, the government relies on the cooperation of ISPs, 
and it doesn't always get it, so that puts limits on what it asks for. 
When it has its own mechanism, under direct government control, it won't 
have to ask anyone, so it'll be much more inclined towards function 
creep. Always to protect the children, or vulnerable people, or to fight 
the terrorists.

>Australia made the same claims about only blocking
>child porn, but a recent leak of their blacklist showed that it was
>heavily involved in political censorship as well.

I haven't seen that. Google doesn't show up anything.

>Australia is not
>usually regarded as being more illiberal than the UK.

Their courts have made some quite oppressive decisions on freedom of 
speech issues.

-- 
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

Cynic  posted
>
>Very true.  You also failed to mention that the ban on child
>pornography was rapidly interpreted to include images that had no
>sexual content, and recently censorship has been expanded to
>criminalise images depicting bestiality and certain types of "extreme"
>adult pornography.

And material that "incites racial hatred". Probably other kinds of 
"hatred" as well, I should think.

-- 
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

Big Les Wade wrote:
> Cynic  posted
>>
>> What do you mean, "next"?  We have no way of knowing what they are
>> suppressing *now*.
> 
> At the moment, though, the government relies on the cooperation of ISPs, 
> and it doesn't always get it, so that puts limits on what it asks for. 
> When it has its own mechanism, under direct government control, it won't 
> have to ask anyone, so it'll be much more inclined towards function 
> creep. Always to protect the children, or vulnerable people, or to fight 
> the terrorists.
> 
>> Australia made the same claims about only blocking
>> child porn, but a recent leak of their blacklist showed that it was
>> heavily involved in political censorship as well.
> 
> I haven't seen that. Google doesn't show up anything.
> 
>

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/A_Blacklist_for_Websites_Backfires_in_Australia

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:47:41 +0100, Dave Muir wrote:


> https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/A_Blacklist_for_Websites_Backfires_in_Australia

Ho ho ho! That web site will keep the kooks weirdos and conspiracy
theorists going for the next 12 months.


-- 
The Wanderer

Inertia keeps me going!

The Wanderer wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:47:41 +0100, Dave Muir wrote:
> 
> 
>> https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/A_Blacklist_for_Websites_Backfires_in_Australia
> 
> Ho ho ho! That web site will keep the kooks weirdos and conspiracy
> theorists going for the next 12 months.
> 
> 

Do you want to knock this messenger as well?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikileaks-expos.html

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:10:47 +0100, Dave Muir wrote:

> The Wanderer wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:47:41 +0100, Dave Muir wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/A_Blacklist_for_Websites_Backfires_in_Australia
>> 
>> Ho ho ho! That web site will keep the kooks weirdos and conspiracy
>> theorists going for the next 12 months.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Do you want to knock this messenger as well?
> 
> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikileaks-expos.html

Nope, I merely took a look at the home page on wikileaks and came to a
conclusion.....


-- 
The Wanderer

Life is a catastrophic success.

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:13:49 -0700 (PDT), allandetracy@live.co.uk
wrote:

>> Except that the "it" in question is *not* abusing children.

>How do you know this?

Because there have been *very* few cases of such crimes (3 Worldwide
over the past 15 years IIRC).

>With criminals, whenever money is changing hands, always expect the
>worst not the best in human behaviour.

You can also expect that a reasonable percentage of any type of crime
that is committed will be detected (unless it is either a crime that
is not seriously pursued or a crime that is extremely difficult to
detect).  Therefore if you see very few of a certain type of crime
being detected, you can be reasonably sure that very few such crimes
are being committed.

Anyone offering child porn for sale can be found just as easily by
police officers as they can by genuine customers.  Therefore anyone
having such a business will either have no customers or will be easily
detected by the police.  The police can then simply follow the money
to find the criminal no matter how well they are able to disguise
their Internet address.

It is the same with Internet "grooming".  We are told that children
are in danger from paedophiles who groom them on the Internet and
arrange to meet for sex.  Yet there have been only 3 or 4 such cases
reported Worldwide, and those were of post-pubescent teenagers who
knew full well that they were going to a sexual liason with an adult.
Sure, there are many cases of adults being caught in a "sting" in
which they arrange to meet what they *think* is a child but in reality
is a police officer.  So the question to ask is why police officers
are solicited so much more frequently than real children.  Perhaps
because they encourage it far more than any real child would?

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:46:57 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:


>
> Yesterday, the criminals were gun owners, culminating in the idiotic
> Snowdrop Petition to rid us of our evil guns. Eventually, even pepper
> spray is now illegal to carry.

Peper spray was never legal in the UK.

What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.

I'm starting to think you don't live here...



-- 
William Black

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:56:32 +0100, The Wanderer
 wrote:

>>>> https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/A_Blacklist_for_Websites_Backfires_in_Australia
 
>>> Ho ho ho! That web site will keep the kooks weirdos and conspiracy
>>> theorists going for the next 12 months.

>> Do you want to knock this messenger as well?
 
>> http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/wikileaks-expos.html

>Nope, I merely took a look at the home page on wikileaks and came to a
>conclusion.....

Whilst I would not take Wikileaks to be any sort of authority, they
have certainly been proven correct on many occasions (e.g. the BNP
membership list), and I do not recall reading anything from them that
has been substantially debunked.

In this case, the Australian government appear to have confirmed that
the leaked list is at least partially correct and does indeed contain
sites that are censored for political reasons.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/20/aussie_firewall_/

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:09:46 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
> The European Union wants new laws that would grant national governments
> the power to force ISPs to block child pornography.

Child porn is bad but every male gets the urge to act sexually whether 
that be to have sex or masturbate whilst looking at pornography. Blocking 
access to pornography won't make that go away. 

When paedophiles are prevented from accessing child pornography is there 
a danger that those with access to children will be more inclined to 
satisfy their urges in other ways?

Cynic wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:37:31 +0100, Big Les Wade 
> wrote:
> 
> >>> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn
> 
> >>Can't see any problem with that.
> 
> >It will certainly be very useful for the government to have the
> >mechanism in place. You never know what it might be necessary to
> >suppress next.
> 
> What do you mean, "next"?  We have no way of knowing what they are
> suppressing *now*.  Australia made the same claims about only blocking
> child porn, but a recent leak of their blacklist showed that it was
> heavily involved in political censorship as well.  Australia is not
> usually regarded as being more illiberal than the UK.

But we are not discussing "next" anyway, that's a different issue. I see 
no problem by blocking child porn that is illegal and can land you in
jail if downloaded. It helps all round and reduces chances of getting
dodgy stuff by your computer by mistake and somebody taking advantage.

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:05:46 +0100, johannes
 wrote:

>But we are not discussing "next" anyway, that's a different issue.

The two are inseperable.  Once you permit mandatory censorship you
lose the ability to decide what is censored.

> I see 
>no problem by blocking child porn that is illegal and can land you in
>jail if downloaded. It helps all round and reduces chances of getting
>dodgy stuff by your computer by mistake and somebody taking advantage.

In which case you should also have no objections about allowing the
government to install mandatory CCTV cameras in your house so long as
that nice Gordon Brown chap *promises* not to use them for anything
except detecting child abuise.

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:17:21 +0100, Cynic wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:05:46 +0100, johannes
>  wrote:
> 
>>But we are not discussing "next" anyway, that's a different issue.
> 
> The two are inseperable.  Once you permit mandatory censorship you
> lose the ability to decide what is censored.
> 
>> I see 
>>no problem by blocking child porn that is illegal and can land you in
>>jail if downloaded. It helps all round and reduces chances of getting
>>dodgy stuff by your computer by mistake and somebody taking advantage.

Hmmm. Under discussion is the blocking of web content that the vast
majority of society finds extremely distasteful. If you don't go there it
won't affect you. If some deviant tries to incriminate you by maliciously
downloading such content via malware, you may be protected by it's being
blocked further up the line. 

No. No problems so far. Not interfering with the way I use my PC.
 
> In which case you should also have no objections about allowing the
> government to install mandatory CCTV cameras in your house 

Ooops. Problem. Your comment is a non sequiteur......


-- 
The Wanderer

Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information
available.

William Black  posted
>Peper spray was never legal in the UK.
>
>What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.
>

I didn't know it was always illegal. Which law specifically made it 
illegal? If you mean it was always illegal as an "offensive weapon", 
you'll have to show that pepper spray has always been *explicitly* 
classified as an offensive weapon; and that everybody's known that for a 
long time.

>I'm starting to think you don't live here...

*I* certainly do.

-- 
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

The Wanderer  posted
>
>Hmmm. Under discussion is the blocking of web content that the vast
>majority of society finds extremely distasteful.

Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material 
that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?

The last 250 years of political philosophy seems to have passed you by.

>If you don't go there it
>won't affect you. If some deviant tries to incriminate you by maliciously
>downloading such content via malware, you may be protected by it's being
>blocked further up the line.

I don't want people who I do not trust to forcibly "protect" me from 
things that don't hurt me. That way lies Stalinism.

>No. No problems so far. Not interfering with the way I use my PC.

So, since it's all right for you, you think it should be imposed on 
everybody else? Tell me, which political party do you support? Do you 
think everybody else should be forced to support the same party? That's 
what your argument implies.

>> In which case you should also have no objections about allowing the
>> government to install mandatory CCTV cameras in your house
>
>Ooops. Problem. Your comment is a non sequiteur......

Not really. Your position implies that you trust the government never to 
use their powers of intrusion to harm you. If you believe that, you have 
no good reason to object to CCTV cameras in your home.

-- 
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

>
> Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material
> that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?
>

Well I tell you what, how about we just let the kids in the pictures,
that never asked to be photographed (let alone any other stuff),
decide?

Let's give them the casting vote for a change on just who gets to see,
what they never asked for in a million years.

Then let’s call it consent or even maybe copyright, whatever, because
without the porn being illegal they would have less rights than even a
musician or a film maker, that chooses to be in the public domain.

I mean what can be so wrong with just asking the kids that are
affected by this, heaven knows it would probably be one of the
precious few times they will have been considered, and then just maybe
give them a break at the expense of the public’s right to know, even
though no one worthy of the tag human should ever want to know.

There’s always such a thing as the public interest when conveying
distasteful information (need to know) and I’m sorry when it come to
child porn, I have racked my brains and found them empty of any
possible reason why people should need to see this stuff, let alone
have the right to do so.

>
> And?  Are people who commit offences in such a way at all likely to
> result in increased child abuse?  If not, there is no justification
> for preventing such exposure unless the person being "protected from
> accidental exposure" wants it.
>

Well I can think of one justification, the feelings of the child
concerned or are you saying they don't count – that they don't deserve
any protection?

Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures so surely they
should have the right to withhold access to the material because even
an adult that has consented has that right.

On Apr 4, 6:25 pm, allandetr...@live.co.uk wrote:
> > And?  Are people who commit offences in such a way at all likely to
> > result in increased child abuse?  If not, there is no justification
> > for preventing such exposure unless the person being "protected from
> > accidental exposure" wants it.
>
> Well I can think of one justification, the feelings of the child
> concerned or are you saying they don't count – that they don't deserve
> any protection?
>
> Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures so surely they
> should have the right to withhold access to the material because even
> an adult that has consented has that right.

[Well I can think of one justification, the feelings of the child
concerned or are you saying they don't count – that they don't deserve
any protection?]

You are presuming that they are unhappy about it.

Then, we make kids do things they are not happy about all the time.

[Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures]

They almost invariably consent (not that it matters),

[so surely they should have the right to withhold access to the
material because even
an adult that has consented has that right. ]

No, because a minor has no legal right to consent or not, hence the
AOC. An adult may try, in law, of course, but there are copyright
issues, just like with any image.

WM

On Apr 4, 6:17 pm, allandetr...@live.co.uk wrote:
> > Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material
> > that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?
>
> Well I tell you what, how about we just let the kids in the pictures,
> that never asked to be photographed (let alone any other stuff),
> decide?
>
> Let's give them the casting vote for a change on just who gets to see,
> what they never asked for in a million years.
>
> Then let’s call it consent or even maybe copyright, whatever, because
> without the porn being illegal they would have less rights than even a
> musician or a film maker, that chooses to be in the public domain.
>
> I mean what can be so wrong with just asking the kids that are
> affected by this, heaven knows it would probably be one of the
> precious few times they will have been considered, and then just maybe
> give them a break at the expense of the public’s right to know, even
> though no one worthy of the tag human should ever want to know.
>
> There’s always such a thing as the public interest when conveying
> distasteful information (need to know) and I’m sorry when it come to
> child porn, I have racked my brains and found them empty of any
> possible reason why people should need to see this stuff, let alone
> have the right to do so.

[Well I tell you what, how about we just let the kids in the pictures,
that never asked to be photographed (let alone any other stuff),
decide?]

Who said they did not?

Not that it matters, see above post.

[Let's give them the casting vote for a change on just who gets to
see,
what they never asked for in a million years.]

I am all for that !!! :)

[Then let’s call it consent or even maybe copyright, whatever, because
without the porn being illegal they would have less rights than even a
musician or a film maker, that chooses to be in the public domain.]

Indebted, it could be a copyright issue, the coprolite would not be
theirs, in the UK.

[I mean what can be so wrong with just asking the kids that are
affected by this, heaven knows it would probably be one of the
precious few times they will have been considered,]

Indeed.

[and then just maybe give them a break at the expense of the public’s
right to know, even
though no one worthy of the tag human should ever want to know.]

Adhom.

[There’s always such a thing as the public interest when conveying
distasteful information (need to know) and I’m sorry when it come to
child porn, I have racked my brains and found them empty of any
possible reason why people should need to see this stuff, let alone
have the right to do so. ]

Because, overall, it would be good for society (like it used to be).

WM

Hehehee, sorry ...

"Indebted, it could be a copyright issue, the coprolite would not be
theirs, in the UK."

=

"Indeed, it could be a copyright issue, the copyright would not be
theirs, in the UK."

WM

On Apr 3, 6:34 pm, William Black  wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:46:57 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> > Yesterday, the criminals were gun owners, culminating in the idiotic
> > Snowdrop Petition to rid us of our evil guns. Eventually, even pepper
> > spray is now illegal to carry.
>
> Peper spray was never legal in the UK.
>
> What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.

AIUI it was legal prior to the 1968 Firearms Act, which banned it
along with machine guns. Indeed we can see an old lady with pepper
spray causing much carnage with it.

Disarmament of UK subjects culminated with the Offensive Weapons Act
1996 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. After that, the
only weapons of protest against the country's inexorable slide into a
Communist police state was foul language.

However, other recent powers given to police officers ensures that
even foul language is now a punishable offence.

> I'm starting to think you don't live here...

Oh dear, Mr. Black has rumbled me! I am undone!

Well it seems I don't live in the UK so the plod can now just FO and
concentrate on monitoring and oppressing UK residents.

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 17:16:28 +0100, Big Les Wade wrote:

> The Wanderer  posted
>>
>>Hmmm. Under discussion is the blocking of web content that the vast
>>majority of society finds extremely distasteful.
> 
> Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material 
> that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?
>
> The last 250 years of political philosophy seems to have passed you by.

Can't say I'm particularly bothered about your assertions.
 
>>If you don't go there it
>>won't affect you. If some deviant tries to incriminate you by maliciously
>>downloading such content via malware, you may be protected by it's being
>>blocked further up the line.
> 
> I don't want people who I do not trust to forcibly "protect" me from 
> things that don't hurt me. That way lies Stalinism.

That, of course is *your* PoV. You also make the mistake of assuming that
any such blocking *will* work. I used the word 'may'. It was, of course an
observation on my part. I have not the faintest idea if any such filtering
will work successfully.
 
>>No. No problems so far. Not interfering with the way I use my PC.

That is *my* PoV.
 
> So, since it's all right for you, you think it should be imposed on 
> everybody else? 

Where have I said what is acceptable to me must be *imposed* on others?
You're trying to put words into my mouth.

> Tell me, which political party do you support? 

None of your business. That's for me and the ballot box alone to know. It's
also symptomatic of the snooping that you are complaining about. That's
quite ironic.

> Do you 
> think everybody else should be forced to support the same party? That's 
> what your argument implies.

What 'argument'? Read my words again 'No. No problems so far. Not
interfering with the way I use my PC.' Anything else was an observation, an
opinion. If you can't see that then your logic is fatally flawed.

Seems to me remarkably like you trying to project your views onto my words.
Please don't.
 
>>> In which case you should also have no objections about allowing the
>>> government to install mandatory CCTV cameras in your house
>>
>>Ooops. Problem. Your comment is a non sequiteur......
> 
> Not really. Your position implies that you trust the government never to 
> use their powers of intrusion to harm you. If you believe that, you have 
> no good reason to object to CCTV cameras in your home.

Still a non sequiteur. My position implies nothing. It is how *I* look at
and live my life. Nothing more, nothing less. Suffice it to say that you
have not the slightest idea of my views on just about anything.

-- 
The Wanderer

Inertia keeps me going!

On Apr 4, 7:11 pm, The Wanderer  wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 17:16:28 퍝, Big Les Wade wrote:
> > The Wanderer  posted
>
> >>Hmmm. Under discussion is the blocking of web content that the vast
> >>majority of society finds extremely distasteful.
>
> > Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material
> > that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?
>
> > The last 250 years of political philosophy seems to have passed you by.
>
> Can't say I'm particularly bothered about your assertions.
>
> >>If you don't go there it
> >>won't affect you. If some deviant tries to incriminate you by maliciously
> >>downloading such content via malware, you may be protected by it's being
> >>blocked further up the line.
>
> > I don't want people who I do not trust to forcibly "protect" me from
> > things that don't hurt me. That way lies Stalinism.
>
> That, of course is *your* PoV. You also make the mistake of assuming that
> any such blocking *will* work. I used the word 'may'. It was, of course an
> observation on my part. I have not the faintest idea if any such filtering
> will work successfully.
>
> >>No. No problems so far. Not interfering with the way I use my PC.
>
> That is *my* PoV.
>
> > So, since it's all right for you, you think it should be imposed on
> > everybody else?
>
> Where have I said what is acceptable to me must be *imposed* on others?
> You're trying to put words into my mouth.
>
> > Tell me, which political party do you support?
>
> None of your business. That's for me and the ballot box alone to know. It's
> also symptomatic of the snooping that you are complaining about. That's
> quite ironic.
>
> > Do you
> > think everybody else should be forced to support the same party? That's
> > what your argument implies.
>
> What 'argument'? Read my words again 'No. No problems so far. Not
> interfering with the way I use my PC.' Anything else was an observation, an
> opinion. If you can't see that then your logic is fatally flawed.
>
> Seems to me remarkably like you trying to project your views onto my words.
> Please don't.
>
> >>> In which case you should also have no objections about allowing the
> >>> government to install mandatory CCTV cameras in your house
>
> >>Ooops. Problem. Your comment is a non sequiteur......
>
> > Not really. Your position implies that you trust the government never to
> > use their powers of intrusion to harm you. If you believe that, you have
> > no good reason to object to CCTV cameras in your home.
>
> Still a non sequiteur. My position implies nothing. It is how *I* look at
> and live my life. Nothing more, nothing less. Suffice it to say that you
> have not the slightest idea of my views on just about anything.
>
> --
> The Wanderer
>
> Inertia keeps me going!

[Still a non sequiteur. My position implies nothing. It is how *I*
look at
and live my life. Nothing more, nothing less. Suffice it to say that
you
have not the slightest idea of my views on just about anything. ]

No, it is a hypothetical extrapolation ... the point is, how far are
you willing to go, before almost all your civil and Human Rights are
gone and why?

That is what interests me.

WM

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT), allandetracy@live.co.uk
wrote:

>> Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material
>> that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?
>>
>
>Well I tell you what, how about we just let the kids in the pictures,
>that never asked to be photographed (let alone any other stuff),
>decide?
>
>Let's give them the casting vote for a change on just who gets to see,
>what they never asked for in a million years.
>
>Then let’s call it consent or even maybe copyright, whatever, because
>without the porn being illegal they would have less rights than even a
>musician or a film maker, that chooses to be in the public domain.
>
>I mean what can be so wrong with just asking the kids that are
>affected by this, heaven knows it would probably be one of the
>precious few times they will have been considered, and then just maybe
>give them a break at the expense of the public’s right to know, even
>though no one worthy of the tag human should ever want to know.

Well if there really is a multi-billion dollar child porn industry as
some people claim, perhaps the professional child porn actors will
decide they want to maintain their income.

-- 
Dissenter

>
> You are presuming that they are unhappy about it.
>
> Then, we make kids do things they are not happy about all the time.
>
> [Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures]
>
> They almost invariably consent (not that it matters),
>

OK let’s have it your way.

Father buggers his ten-year-old child, with consent or otherwise, and
posts video on Youtube.

Father gets sent down for buggering their child (presumably you have
no problem with this) but video remains on Youtube, on the grounds of
public interest and that just because despicable things get filmed
that’s no justification for censorship.

Child goes back to school only to discover all the kids have copies of
the video on their mobile phones and are all offering their
complements on what a nice arse they have.

Now do you see the flaw in your argument?

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:07:38 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:

> On Apr 3, 6:34 pm, William Black  wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:46:57 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:
>>
>> > Yesterday, the criminals were gun owners, culminating in the idiotic
>> > Snowdrop Petition to rid us of our evil guns. Eventually, even pepper
>> > spray is now illegal to carry.
>>
>> Peper spray was never legal in the UK.
>>
>> What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.
> 
> AIUI it was legal prior to the 1968 Firearms Act, which banned it along
> with machine guns. Indeed we can see an old lady with pepper spray
> causing much carnage with it.

So you think private ownership of machine guns was legal in the UK before 
1968?

What planet are you on?

> Disarmament of UK subjects culminated with the Offensive Weapons Act
> 1996 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. After that, the only
> weapons of protest against the country's inexorable slide into a
> Communist police state was foul language.

The issue of licenses for pistols certainly stopped then.

The difficulty of getting licenses for rifles, shotguns and explosives 
remained about the same.  The only major change I'm aware of is that now 
I believe there is now a training requirement for shotgun licenses,  but 
it's pretty lax,  you dad can train you if he's a shooter.

What on earth makes you think a pistol is a weapon suitable for defending 
yourself against a police state?


-- 
William Black

allandetracy@live.co.uk wrote:

> > 
> > You are presuming that they are unhappy about it.
> > 
> > Then, we make kids do things they are not happy about all the time.
> > 
> > [Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures]
> > 
> > They almost invariably consent (not that it matters),
> > 
> 
> OK let’s have it your way.
> 
> Father buggers his ten-year-old child, with consent or otherwise, and
> posts video on Youtube.
> 
> Father gets sent down for buggering their child (presumably you have
> no problem with this) but video remains on Youtube, on the grounds of
> public interest and that just because despicable things get filmed
> that’s no justification for censorship.
> 
> Child goes back to school only to discover all the kids have copies of
> the video on their mobile phones and are all offering their
> complements on what a nice arse they have.
> 
> Now do you see the flaw in your argument?

[OK let’s have it your way.]

My way?

[Father buggers his ten-year-old child, with consent or otherwise, and 
posts video on Youtube. ]

OK, I will accept your straw man for the sake of argument.

[Father gets sent down for buggering their child ]

Which he would not, in such a society.

[(presumably you have no problem with this)]

My view on that issue it not the issue.

[but video remains on Youtube, on the grounds of 
public interest and that just because despicable things get filmed 
that’s no justification for censorship. ]

Exactly, just like any other image.

[Child goes back to school only to discover all the kids have copies of 
the video on their mobile phones and are all offering their 
complements on what a nice arse they have.]

Then all is well, but why would they have, or why would it be an issue,
as millions of such images have been available all their lives? It is
quite normal, in their world.

[Now do you see the flaw in your argument? ]

I can see no flaw whatsover. I can only see that a tolerant and
rational society has evolved.

I cannot criticise that – who could?

WM

On Apr 4, 7:35 pm, William Black  wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:07:38 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 6:34 pm, William Black  wrote:
> >> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:46:57 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> >> > Yesterday, the criminals were gun owners, culminating in the idiotic
> >> > Snowdrop Petition to rid us of our evil guns. Eventually, even pepper
> >> > spray is now illegal to carry.
>
> >> Peper spray was never legal in the UK.
>
> >> What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.
>
> > AIUI it was legal prior to the 1968 Firearms Act, which banned it along
> > with machine guns. Indeed we can see an old lady with pepper spray
> > causing much carnage with it.
>
> So you think private ownership of machine guns was legal in the UK before
> 1968?
>
> What planet are you on?

You may have missed my sarcasm but in case you didn't, machine guns
are a subset of automatic weapons, the latter which the Firearms Act
1968 targeted.

Specifically section 5 of the act states:
5 Weapons subject to general prohibition

(1)A person commits an offence if, without the authority of the
Defence Council [F1or the Scottish Ministers (by virtue of provision
made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998)], he has in his
possession, or purchases or acquires, or manufactures, sells or
transfers—

[F2(a)any firearm which is so designed or adapted that two or more
missiles can be successively discharged without repeated pressure on
the trigger;

(ab)any self-loading or pump-action [F3rifled gun] other than one
which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges;

[F4(aba)any firearm which either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres
in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall, other than
an air weapon, F5. . . a muzzle-loading gun or a firearm designed as
signalling apparatus;]

(ac)any self-loading or pump-action smooth-bore gun which is not [F6an
air weapon or] chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges and either has a
barrel less than 24 inches in length or F7. . . is less than 40 inches
in length overall;

(ad)any smooth-bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered for
9mm. rim-fire cartridges or [F8a muzzle-loading gun];

(ae)any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised
missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or
pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus;]

[F9(af)any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed
or adapted for use with, a self-contained gas cartridge system;]

(b)any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the
discharge of any noxious liquid, gas or other thing; and

[F10(c)any cartridge with a bullet designed to explode on or
immediately before impact, any ammunition containing or designed or
adapted to contain any such noxious thing as is mentioned in paragraph
(b) above and, if capable of being used with a firearm of any
description, any grenade, bomb (or other like missile), or rocket or
shell designed to explode as aforesaid.]

> > Disarmament of UK subjects culminated with the Offensive Weapons Act
> > 1996 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997. After that, the only
> > weapons of protest against the country's inexorable slide into a
> > Communist police state was foul language.
>
> The issue of licenses for pistols certainly stopped then.
>
> The difficulty of getting licenses for rifles, shotguns and explosives
> remained about the same.  The only major change I'm aware of is that now
> I believe there is now a training requirement for shotgun licenses,  but
> it's pretty lax,  you dad can train you if he's a shooter.
>
> What on earth makes you think a pistol is a weapon suitable for defending
> yourself against a police state?

A pistol alone is not a weapon one can use to prevent a country
descending into a police state.

Recall that I do not agree with arms control of any sort and think
that anyone should be able to walk into an arms store to buy anything
from anti-material sniper rifles to shaped charges and anti-personnel
mines. Darwin will police their usage.

Other weapons which can be used to prevent a country descending into a
police state are:
1) Right to congregate (police can now disperse groups of people)
2) Right to protest (try protesting in front of Parliament)
3) Utterly free and uncensored media (the topic of this thread)
4) Right to say whatever you want, criticise and offend whoever you
want (various incitement laws prohibit that now)

On Apr 4, 8:08 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> William Black  posted
>
> >Peper spray was never legal in the UK.
>
> >What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.
>
> I didn't know it was always illegal. Which law specifically made it
> illegal? If you mean it was always illegal as an "offensive weapon",
> you'll have to show that pepper spray has always been *explicitly*
> classified as an offensive weapon; and that everybody's known that for a
> long time.
>
> >I'm starting to think you don't live here...
>
> *I* certainly do.

You're wasting your  time, poor little Black is a jew and *his*
ancestors only
arrived 5  minutes ago from Poland./Russia/Lithuania/Hungary  - pick
one.

He also doesn't care too much for those who have the desire and guts
 to defend themselves against the kind of garbage we see on the
streets of Britain today.
He cares more about the rights of the criminal than he does about
their countless
victims.  He'll probably advise you to "get a big dog".
>
> --
> Les

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:18:00 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:

> On Apr 4, 7:35 pm, William Black  wrote:


>> So you think private ownership of machine guns was legal in the UK
>> before 1968?
>>
>> What planet are you on?
> 
> You may have missed my sarcasm but in case you didn't, machine guns are
> a subset of automatic weapons, the latter which the Firearms Act 1968
> targeted.

I think you'll find that there was something on the statute books before 
then.


>> The issue of licenses for pistols certainly stopped then.
>>
>> The difficulty of getting licenses for rifles, shotguns and explosives
>> remained about the same.  The only major change I'm aware of is that
>> now I believe there is now a training requirement for shotgun licenses,
>>  but it's pretty lax,  you dad can train you if he's a shooter.
>>
>> What on earth makes you think a pistol is a weapon suitable for
>> defending yourself against a police state?
> 
> A pistol alone is not a weapon one can use to prevent a country
> descending into a police state.
> 
> Recall that I do not agree with arms control of any sort and think that
> anyone should be able to walk into an arms store to buy anything from
> anti-material sniper rifles to shaped charges and anti-personnel mines.
> Darwin will police their usage.

Well no.

In that sort of a state the people with the most money and friends/
henchmen will control just about everything.

Are they still counting bodies in New York?

-- 
William Black

On Apr 4, 8:38 pm, William Black  wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:18:00 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 7:35 pm, William Black  wrote:
> >> So you think private ownership of machine guns was legal in the UK
> >> before 1968?
>
> >> What planet are you on?
>
> > You may have missed my sarcasm but in case you didn't, machine guns are
> > a subset of automatic weapons, the latter which the Firearms Act 1968
> > targeted.
>
> I think you'll find that there was something on the statute books before
> then.

I'm just a dense soldier so maybe you could back up your assertion
with the relevant citations?

> >> The issue of licenses for pistols certainly stopped then.
>
> >> The difficulty of getting licenses for rifles, shotguns and explosives
> >> remained about the same.  The only major change I'm aware of is that
> >> now I believe there is now a training requirement for shotgun licenses> >>  but it's pretty lax,  you dad can train you if he's a shooter.
>
> >> What on earth makes you think a pistol is a weapon suitable for
> >> defending yourself against a police state?
>
> > A pistol alone is not a weapon one can use to prevent a country
> > descending into a police state.
>
> > Recall that I do not agree with arms control of any sort and think that
> > anyone should be able to walk into an arms store to buy anything from
> > anti-material sniper rifles to shaped charges and anti-personnel mines.
> > Darwin will police their usage.
>
> Well no.
>
> In that sort of a state the people with the most money and friends/
> henchmen will control just about everything.

Speculation. But I'll say that the surest thing for an oppressed
police state to form is centralised power of which gun control is one
of them.

> Are they still counting bodies in New York?

What about:
Ottoman Turkey 	1915-1917
Armenians
(mostly Christians) 	1-1.5 million
Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866  & 1911 Proclamation, 1915
• Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession

Soviet Union 	1929-1945
Political opponents; farming communities 	20 million
Resolutions, 1918 Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926
•Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties

Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 	1933-1945
Political opponents; Jews; Gypsies; critics; "examples" 	20 million
Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928 Weapon Law, March 18, 1938 Regulations
against Jews, 1938 	•Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession

China, Nationalist
1927-1949 	Political opponents; army conscripts; others 	10 million
Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935
•Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership

China, Red 	1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976
Political opponents; Rural populations Enemies of the state 	20-35
million
Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957
•Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone
resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"

Guatemala 	1960-1981
Mayans & other Indians; political enemies 	100,000-200,000
Decree 36, Nov 25
Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964
•Register guns & owners
•Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools
•Confiscation powers

Uganda 	1971-1979
Christians Political enemies 	300,000
Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970
•Register all guns & owners
•Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches
•Confiscation powers

Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge) 	1975-1979
Educated Persons; Political enemies 	2 million
Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938
•Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints
•License inspected quarterly

Rwanda 	1994
Tutsi people 	800,000
Decree-Law No. 12, 1979
•Register guns, owners, ammunition
•Owners must justify need
•Concealable guns illegal
•Confiscating powers

Source: http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

On Apr 4, 8:30 pm, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
> On Apr 4, 8:08 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:
>
> > William Black  posted
>
> > >Peper spray was never legal in the UK.
>
> > >What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.
>
> > I didn't know it was always illegal. Which law specifically made it
> > illegal? If you mean it was always illegal as an "offensive weapon",
> > you'll have to show that pepper spray has always been *explicitly*
> > classified as an offensive weapon; and that everybody's known that for a
> > long time.
>
> > >I'm starting to think you don't live here...
>
> > *I* certainly do.
>
> You're wasting your  time, poor little Black is a jew and *his*
> ancestors only
> arrived 5  minutes ago from Poland./Russia/Lithuania/Hungary  - pick
> one.
>
> He also doesn't care too much for those who have the desire and guts
>  to defend themselves against the kind of garbage we see on the
> streets of Britain today.
> He cares more about the rights of the criminal than he does about
> their countless
> victims.  He'll probably advise you to "get a big dog".

A snivelling, appeasenik eunuch!

What better servant could a dictator ask for? :)

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:12:19 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:

>
>> > You may have missed my sarcasm but in case you didn't, machine guns
>> > are a subset of automatic weapons, the latter which the Firearms Act
>> > 1968 targeted.
>>
>> I think you'll find that there was something on the statute books
>> before then.
> 
> I'm just a dense soldier so maybe you could back up your assertion with
> the relevant citations?

Very dense...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1937_Firearms_Act


> Soviet Union 	1929-1945
> Political opponents; farming communities 	20 million Resolutions, 
1918
> Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •Licensing of
> owners
> •Ban on possession
> •Severe penalties

The Kulacks had plenty of guns,  so they came for them with machine guns 
and artillery.

You can't stop a modern state with stuff you can carry.

> Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 	1933-1945 Political opponents; 
Jews;
> Gypsies; critics; "examples" 	20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
> Weapon Law, March 18, 1938 Regulations against Jews, 1938 	
•Registration
> & Licensing •Stricter handgun laws
> •Ban on possession

1928 is a touch early for the Nazis,  a group so anti-gun that they gave 
the guy in charge of a train a pistol...

The rest of the bollocks has been deleted.  The idea that refusing people 
permission to buy guns in a societies where they haven't enough money to 
buy food is absurd.

The fact is that in Iraq they've got a 'gun culture' that makes that of 
the USA look positively timid,  and look where it has got them...


-- 
William Black

On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:25:14 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:

> On Apr 4, 8:30 pm, "Boedi...@isp.com"  wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 8:08 am, Big Les Wade  wrote:
>>
>> > William Black  posted
>>
>> > >Peper spray was never legal in the UK.
>>
>> > >What's more everyone's known that for a very long time.
>>
>> > I didn't know it was always illegal. Which law specifically made it
>> > illegal? If you mean it was always illegal as an "offensive weapon",
>> > you'll have to show that pepper spray has always been *explicitly*
>> > classified as an offensive weapon; and that everybody's known that
>> > for a long time.
>>
>> > >I'm starting to think you don't live here...
>>
>> > *I* certainly do.
>>
>> You're wasting your  time, poor little Black is a jew and *his*
>> ancestors only
>> arrived 5  minutes ago from Poland./Russia/Lithuania/Hungary  - pick
>> one.
>>
>> He also doesn't care too much for those who have the desire and guts
>>  to defend themselves against the kind of garbage we see on the
>> streets of Britain today.
>> He cares more about the rights of the criminal than he does about their
>> countless
>> victims.  He'll probably advise you to "get a big dog".
> 
> A snivelling, appeasenik eunuch!
> 
> What better servant could a dictator ask for? :)

Will you two get a room...



-- 
William Black

allandetracy wrote:

> I’m sorry when it come to child porn, I have racked my brains and 
> found them empty of any possible reason why people should need 
> to see this stuff, let alone have the right to do so.

There are people out there who enjoy Scottish country dancing.

In message 
, 
allandetracy@live.co.uk writes
>>
>> And?  Are people who commit offences in such a way at all likely to
>> result in increased child abuse?  If not, there is no justification
>> for preventing such exposure unless the person being "protected from
>> accidental exposure" wants it.
>>
>
>Well I can think of one justification, the feelings of the child
>concerned or are you saying they don't count – that they don't deserve
>any protection?
>
>Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures so surely they
>should have the right to withhold access to the material because even
>an adult that has consented has that right.

"If it protects just one child..."

How many freedoms have we lost to that mantra?

This is not about protecting children. It is about not accepting that 
the Government has the right to censor what we can and can't see. That 
is a significantly different, and more dangerous scenario from making 
possession of certain images illegal. Once you concede the right to 
censor, you lose the right to check whether what is being censored only 
falls into that one category or spreads much further. It is a very 
slippery slope.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message 
, 
allandetracy@live.co.uk writes
>>
>> You are presuming that they are unhappy about it.
>>
>> Then, we make kids do things they are not happy about all the time.
>>
>> [Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures]
>>
>> They almost invariably consent (not that it matters),
>>
>
>OK let’s have it your way.
>
>Father buggers his ten-year-old child, with consent or otherwise, and
>posts video on Youtube.
>
>Father gets sent down for buggering their child (presumably you have
>no problem with this) but video remains on Youtube, on the grounds of
>public interest and that just because despicable things get filmed
>that’s no justification for censorship.
>
>Child goes back to school only to discover all the kids have copies of
>the video on their mobile phones and are all offering their
>complements on what a nice arse they have.
>
>Now do you see the flaw in your argument?

No, but the flaw in yours is crystal clear.
-- 
Richard Miller

allandetracy@live.co.uk wrote:


>There’s always such a thing as the public interest when conveying
>distasteful information (need to know) and I’m sorry when it come to
>child porn,

What is "child porn"? (Answer. Whatever the Government wants it to
be.)

> I have racked my brains and found them empty of any possible reason
> why people should need to see this stuff, let alone have the right to do so.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc>


-- 
Sleepalot   aa #1385

Cynic wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:05:46 +0100, johannes
>  wrote:
> 
> >But we are not discussing "next" anyway, that's a different issue.
> 
> The two are inseperable.  Once you permit mandatory censorship you
> lose the ability to decide what is censored.
> 
> > I see
> >no problem by blocking child porn that is illegal and can land you in
> >jail if downloaded. It helps all round and reduces chances of getting
> >dodgy stuff by your computer by mistake and somebody taking advantage.
> 
> In which case you should also have no objections about allowing the
> government to install mandatory CCTV cameras in your house so long as
> that nice Gordon Brown chap *promises* not to use them for anything
> except detecting child abuise.

Why do you go on assuming the next step? I don't because I can't see any 
connection. I can't see how blocking illegal CP at source can be mixed
up with blocking sites for political reasons or spying on my home. Of 
course I would always be against such intrusion in privacy. 

You should welcome blocking illegal CP at source since this is where the 
abuse takes place.

On Apr 4, 10:28 pm, William Black  wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:12:19 -0700, Oppressed Subject wrote:
>
> >> > You may have missed my sarcasm but in case you didn't, machine guns
> >> > are a subset of automatic weapons, the latter which the Firearms Act
> >> > 1968 targeted.
>
> >> I think you'll find that there was something on the statute books
> >> before then.
>
> > I'm just a dense soldier so maybe you could back up your assertion with
> > the relevant citations?
>
> Very dense...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1937_Firearms_Act
>

So what? All you've done is shown that the UK's slide into
totalitarianism and centralised governmental power is more entrenched
and timeless than I originally intimated.

>
> > Soviet Union       1929-1945
> > Political opponents; farming communities   20 million Resolutions,
> 1918
> > Decree, July 12, 1920 Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •Licensing of
> > owners
> > •Ban on possession
> > •Severe penalties
>
> The Kulacks had plenty of guns,  so they came for them with machine guns
> and artillery.
>
> You can't stop a modern state with stuff you can carry.

Yes you can. Soldiers need to get out of their tanks and even the
modern day US army with all its fancy gizmos struggle in urban combat.


>
>
> > Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe         1933-1945 Political opponents;
> Jews;
> > Gypsies; critics; "examples"     20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
> > Weapon Law, March 18, 1938 Regulations against Jews, 1938  
> •Registration
> > & Licensing •Stricter handgun laws
> > •Ban on possession
>
> 1928 is a touch early for the Nazis,  a group so anti-gun that they gave
> the guy in charge of a train a pistol...

As long as he wasn't a Jew.

> The rest of the bollocks has been deleted.  The idea that refusing people
> permission to buy guns in a societies where they haven't enough money to
> buy food is absurd.

Much of the problems in Africa are due to:
1) Their lower average intelligence
2) Mismanagement of their wealth

We can't fix the first one (not unless we intermarry with them a lot
and lower ours in an attempt to raise theirs) but corrupt despots in
those countries could certainly be cured with a bullet.

Gun control entrenches the power of those who have it. Gun freedom is
the ultimate emancipator.

> The fact is that in Iraq they've got a 'gun culture' that makes that of
> the USA look positively timid,  and look where it has got them...

Iraq was where it was because of a power vacuum left behind by a
dictator who held his country together with an iron fist.

After an initial settling period (which all armed communities go
through) things are beginning to return to normality. That's all it
was; a Darwinistic settling period.

The Americans could well have just left the country for a few years
after killing Saddam and come back in once the dust settled.

allandetracy@live.co.uk posted
>>
>> Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material
>> that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?
>>
>
>Well I tell you what, how about we just let the kids in the pictures,
>that never asked to be photographed (let alone any other stuff),
>decide?
>
>Let's give them the casting vote for a change on just who gets to see,
>what they never asked for in a million years.

Actually, I would support a law that went something like that. There 
certainly is an argument that a person portrayed in a photograph that 
shows him in a humiliating or compromising position should sometimes 
have rights to restrict the distribution or publication of the 
photograph. It *is* sometimes wrong to distribute such photos.

What I object to in the child porn business is the draconian nature of 
the law - you will go to prison merely for possessing a cartoon drawing 
of a naked schoolgirl - and the way "child protection" is being used to 
introduce all sorts of repressive police powers.

>Then let’s call it consent or even maybe copyright, whatever, because
>without the porn being illegal they would have less rights than even a
>musician or a film maker, that chooses to be in the public domain.
>
>I mean what can be so wrong with just asking the kids that are
>affected by this,

There are many problems with it. Just one is the difficulty that has 
already overwhelmed the (formerly perfectly legitimate) pastime of 
public photography. If everybody in the area has to give permission 
before anyone can take a photo, then nobody can take any more photos in 
public.

And don't tell me "oh that's irrelevant because we're only talking about 
indecent photos here", because the cry of "Paedophile" is already being 
regularly used to stop photography where there is quite clearly no 
indecency.

That is just one danger. A law ostensibly made to stop genuinely 
unpleasant activities is gradually corrupted, with the connivance of the 
authorities, to stop many other harmless or beneficial activities. It 
would be exactly the same with a government mechanism for direct 
censorship. You can be absolutely certain it would be extended to stop 
the publication of views the government did not want to be heard; just 
as the law on "hate crime" has been extended.

>heaven knows it would probably be one of the
>precious few times they will have been considered, and then just maybe
>give them a break at the expense of the public’s right to know, even
>though no one worthy of the tag human should ever want to know.
>
>There’s always such a thing as the public interest when conveying
>distasteful information (need to know) and I’m sorry when it come to
>child porn, I have racked my brains and found them empty of any
>possible reason why people should need to see this stuff, let alone
>have the right to do so.

You didn't really catch the point of my question (the one at the top); 
which was that finding stuff distasteful isn't a valid reason for 
suppressing  it, not in a democratic and pluralist society where one 
person's taste is not supposed to be any "superior" to anyone else's. 
The only justification is where it is actually doing harm; and even then 
it doesn't need such a harsh regime as we now have.

Yes, of course child porn (real child porn, not pictures of naked 
children) is distasteful to most people such as you and me. But once we 
accept that the government has the right to stop other people seeing 
stuff they want to see, just because you and I find it distasteful, then 
we can't consistently object when they stop you and I seeing stuff we 
want to see because somebody *else* finds it distasteful.

Always remember Lady Chatterley, and how "They" didn't want you or your 
servants to read it because it was just too terrible. That was forty odd 
years ago, and that censorship regime was crushed because ordinary 
people pushed back against it. But if we stop pushing, it'll be back. 
That is the way it works.

-- 
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

The Wanderer formulated the question :
> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:09:46 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
>> UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn
>
> Can't see any problem with that.

I like my Wikipedia pages free from interference, but if they implement 
a Wikipedia block once again I will simply have to spend money on 
Jondos, http://www.jondos.de/en

You can still get tons of child porn off Usenet anway, you just need to 
choose an uncensored provider.

-- 
Privacylover: http://www.privacylover.com

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:17:46 -0700 (PDT), allandetracy@live.co.uk
wrote:

>> Do you then believe that nobody should be allowed to view any material
>> that the vast majority of society finds extremely distasteful?

>Well I tell you what, how about we just let the kids in the pictures,
>that never asked to be photographed (let alone any other stuff),
>decide?

So long as you also let everyone else decide whether or not to allow
their photograph to be published, and allow the government to censor
any web site that publishes images against the consent of the people
in the image.

There are plenty of criminals and drunken celebrities who would
support such a law.

-- 
Cynic

On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:07:40 +0100, johannes
 wrote:

>> In which case you should also have no objections about allowing the
>> government to install mandatory CCTV cameras in your house so long as
>> that nice Gordon Brown chap *promises* not to use them for anything
>> except detecting child abuise.
>
>Why do you go on assuming the next step? I don't because I can't see any 
>connection. I can't see how blocking illegal CP at source can be mixed
>up with blocking sites for political reasons or spying on my home. Of 
>course I would always be against such intrusion in privacy. 

It is because in both cases you have to trust the government to use
the tools you have given them in *only* the way you want the tools to
be used.

You witter on about there being nothing wrong with blocking child porn
whilst ignoring the fact that child porn is not the only content that
will be blocked once we make the technology mandatory.

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:25:43 -0700 (PDT), allandetracy@live.co.uk
wrote:

>> And?  Are people who commit offences in such a way at all likely to
>> result in increased child abuse?  If not, there is no justification
>> for preventing such exposure unless the person being "protected from
>> accidental exposure" wants it.

>Well I can think of one justification, the feelings of the child
>concerned or are you saying they don't count – that they don't deserve
>any protection?

>Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures so surely they
>should have the right to withhold access to the material because even
>an adult that has consented has that right.

Where do you get the fallaciouis idea that an adult has the right to
prevent his photograph from being published?

-- 
Cynic

On Apr 6, 10:37 am, Cynic  wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:25:43 -0700 (PDT), allandetr...@live.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> >> And?  Are people who commit offences in such a way at all likely to
> >> result in increased child abuse?  If not, there is no justification
> >> for preventing such exposure unless the person being "protected from
> >> accidental exposure" wants it.
> >Well I can think of one justification, the feelings of the child
> >concerned or are you saying they don't count – that they don't deserve
> >any protection?
> >Remember, they never consent to being in the pictures so surely they
> >should have the right to withhold access to the material because even
> >an adult that has consented has that right.
>
> Where do you get the fallaciouis idea that an adult has the right to
> prevent his photograph from being published?
>
> --
> Cynic

See REKLOS ;), also, when in a court :)

Actually, the PCC will 'instruct' their members to stop doing so
(without consent), if the harassment does not balance the public
interest.

'Legally' mainly requires civil action.

WM

In MsgID on Mon, 06 Apr 2009
10:35:51 +0100, in uk.politics.censorship, 'Cynic' wrote:

>You witter on about there being nothing wrong with blocking child porn
>whilst ignoring the fact that child porn is not the only content that
>will be blocked once we make the technology mandatory.

One element that worries me (perhaps the denizens of uk.legal could
clarify?) is that such technology, once installed will provide, by design,
easy facility to block particular addresses (or groups of addresses). 

Surely, the moment it's easily possible to block particular sites, the
ISPs would become liable for any content that a court requests be blocked
if they choose not to do so?

So, just as the godfreak vs demon case scarred usenet servers and web
hosts[1], this opens the way for similar scarring of IP transit itself?

[1] "OMG this guy can spell l-i-b-e-l! DELETE DELETE DELETE!"

Dave J.

Sleepalot wrote :
> allandetracy@live.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>> There’s always such a thing as the public interest when conveying
>> distasteful information (need to know) and I’m sorry when it come to
>> child porn,
>
> What is "child porn"? (Answer. Whatever the Government wants it to
> be.)
>
In the UK looking at cartoons are considered child abuse punishable 
with up to three years in prison, that is child porn.

In the UK Wikipedia is also considered child porn, expect Wikipedia to 
be block.

We should start talking about all the political prisoners jailed for 
cartoon posession.

-- 
Privacylover: http://www.privacylover.com