Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Net Companies Pledge Child Porn Crackdown


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Scarlett

Scarlett

    Bleeping Diva


  • Members
  • 7,479 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:As always I'm beside myself ;)
  • Local time:12:27 AM

Posted 27 June 2006 - 12:29 PM

In an attempt to forestall potentially intrusive new federal laws, a coalition of Internet companies has launched a campaign against child pornography that they say will tip off police to illegal images. By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: June 27, 2006, 5:48 AM PDT The Internet companies--AOL, EarthLink, Microsoft, United Online and Yahoo--are pledging $1 million in cash and technical assistance to develop technology that can "detect and disrupt the distribution of known images of child exploitation" on the Internet. The coalition's effort will take place under the auspices of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:27 AM

Posted 27 June 2006 - 12:43 PM

technology that can "detect and disrupt the distribution of known images of child exploitation" on the Internet.


Hm... is it more or does this sound like a waste of money. I'm not saying battling child porn is bad, heck I support the crackdown. However, what about the Joe Smith that lives down the street who just exploited the neighbor's daughter and just uploaded her pictures of her naked? Hm... I guess that isn't known. To me this doesn't sound like an efficient way to battle it.

#3 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:12:27 AM

Posted 27 June 2006 - 02:26 PM

I wonder who determines what is "known" child pornogrphy, and when this kind of censorship, when perfected, will be extended to other areas on the internet or elsewhere- - -all, of course, for our own good.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#4 saint satin stain

saint satin stain

  • Members
  • 150 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL and Greenwich Village
  • Local time:12:27 AM

Posted 29 June 2006 - 07:37 PM

I want to know who decides what is porn? I have some pictures of my granddaughter sent by her mom and dad. They are nudes of her frolicking with father and mother during baths. None are sexual to someone who is not a pervert. I keep them on an external hard drive, not on my computer's hard drive. And I erased the free space on my computer's hard drive after I transferred them to the other drive. I did this when a technician refused to make hard copies because he thought them porn. I took them to another shop. I told the tech there about some of the content to avoid wasting my time. He said, we dont look at the pictures; we just process them. That shop gets my business in the future. There have been cases where the images of children were digitally created.

"Tuesday, April 17th, the Supreme Court handed down a decision striking down the elements of the Child Pornography Protection Act2 (CPPA) that criminalized the possession, distribution or creation of “virtual” child pornography.3 The Court based its ruling on three basic points: 1) The law was too broad and criminalized harmless images that bore no relation to pornography, such as the movie “American Beauty.”4 2) The law was too broad and not only placed too high a burden on the defendant to prove, but also was irrelevant because virtual child pornography was a legal and logical alternative to actual child pornography. 3) The Court refused to recognize a direct link between the consumption of virtual child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children." 1 Staff Attorney, American Prosecutors Research Institute’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.
2 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 US __ (2002).

I would restrict enforcement to actual children subjected to actual abuse and/or abuse of their images. My family has all the major religions represented, and some minor ones; it has two to three dozen racial types if you still use the social, not scientific, way of judging race. My granddaughter has blonde hair and greenish eyes, one of my first cousins is a 'black' Greek Cypriot. I am a Jew. My son is a Jew. One daughter is a Jew; the other daughter is not. All by birth. I have been married five times is a clue. I do carry pictures of granddaughter, grand nieces and nephews (my grandnieces are Polish, German, Puerto Rican Jews), and the children of good friends in my wallet. I was asked by a police officer once, during a request for ID, why do you have a picture of a young white girl in your wallet? I am medium-dark brown, dark brown hair and eyes. I live in Alabama but that stop was in Philadelphia. We have to be very careful in the legislation and enforcement of child pornography; there is much emotion involved in this subject. Remember the educators who were tried and convicted of spurious charges of child abuse in California. There is a difference between a 18 year old having sex with a fifteen year old and a thirty year old having repeated sexual encounters with minors. We have to judge fairly and rationally each case. We have to control the emotional response and deliberate calmly. It is dangerous the usual response to allegations of sexual abuse of children.

My family is extremely conservative (I'm libertarian) but does not believe nakedness is shameful. Although we know that allowing toddlers, male and female, to only wear pants and go topless is not bad; we would not allow this on a public beach because of the prudish attitudes of many in this society. When a child I asked parents about body and sex, they told me. They also told me that I didnt have to allow anyone to violate my personal space near or on my body. My parents knocked on the door to my room and didn't come in until I said come in. Open honest talk and education is the best defense against child abuse, along with the parenting of mother and father and their surrogates.

Computers for your children should be in the same room as your computer. Schedule your computer use or reading to coincide with their computer use. Use a router to control when they can go online. Password your router. The penalty for resetting the router is the loss of computer privileges and social privileges. Hands on (not violence) is what is needed. Too often Americans want others to parent, the legislature, schools, police, etc.

Very emotional and dangerous subject.

Edited by saint satin stain, 30 June 2006 - 07:36 PM.

saint satin stain
Responsible for what I say,
not for what you understand.
www.leftinalabama.com


#5 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:27 AM

Posted 29 June 2006 - 09:29 PM

Very good point saint satin stain.

One must analyze each situation based on what is presented and what is available.

#6 the_thunderdog

the_thunderdog

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:09:27 PM

Posted 29 June 2006 - 09:58 PM

How about big time fines for companies and dog pound time for those skunks that host the sites, register the sleezy domain names and distribute the email? Yes, those right here in america. pup [size=4]

#7 saint satin stain

saint satin stain

  • Members
  • 150 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Huntsville, AL and Greenwich Village
  • Local time:12:27 AM

Posted 30 June 2006 - 08:50 PM

How about big time fines for companies and dog pound time for those skunks that host the sites, register the sleezy[sic] domain names and distribute the email? Yes, those right here in america. pup [size=4]


The imagery is designed to paint some preceived miscreants as evil. I would prefer to read your reasoned indictment of these companies. I am not sure that hosting companies know what is presented on all the sites that they host until there is a complaint. What would you propose that we do about the sleazy domain names? The quote that follows may present a wee bit of a problem; it may prevent the implementation of your solutions.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My hierarchy of value is the holy one, family, the constitution. Living in a free society means that sometimes we may hear and see things that we may not approve. I am not concerned about sleazy domain names; I want to protect children without doing harm to our ideal way of life. Our constitutional life.

saint satin stain
Responsible for what I say,
not for what you understand.
www.leftinalabama.com





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users