Thus spake Ringo Kamens (2600denver@xxxxxxxxx):
> I want to add my two cents about child porn. Censorship is censorship, it
> doesn't matter what you censor or by what logic you censor. Banning child
> porn is censorship, copyright is censorship, and stopping people from
> speaking who have opposing political views is censrorship. It seems to be
a
> well known fact that freenet is filled with pedophilia, yet freenet is
just
> fine and dandy. If pedophilia was a *real* threat to privacy services,
then
> proxies wouldn't exist.
The other issue is why is law enforcement energy being wasted at
targeting people who *look* at child porn instead of those who
actually provide the porn - or worse, create the porn.
While all three groups of people are unquestionably sick, two groups
are actively engaging in the exploitation of children where the other
is just watching it like a train wreck.
Since law enforcement capacity is clearly finite, you would think even
fanatical people should be able realize that if you really want to
protect children, you go balls to the wall to find or at least shut
down the PRODUCERS of the content, and stop wasting valuable resources
going after small time consumers who for all we know may actually be
less likely to harm real children if they are able to satisfy their
sick fantasies via imagination and not reality. Hell, "consumers" can
even be framed by crackers using their machines to download/store the
stuff.
Targeting consumers of child porn seems to be too convienient a way to
ram all sorts of BS legislation through congress, wasting both tax and
ISP $$ in the process, and doing way more harm to the rights of
average people than to pedophiles.
--
Mike Perry
Mad Computer Scientist
fscked.org evil labs