The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
From what I can gather from Daytime TV, the soaps and papers, the current middle class scare is that of the chat room paedophile.
This being, (although I’m sure everyone already knows), the activity of paedophiles to use chat rooms to manipulate children, supposedly talking them into a meeting at some point.
Now, if this is happening, it is a terrible thing, and it does need to be stopped.
But I cant help feeling that the scare tactics used by the popular media are only causing unnecessary problems, making the situation worse, and helping no-one but the Newspapers bank balance.
I understand that there are about two soaps currently running a story about teenage girls being talked into a meeting with a paedophile. Wherein the offender pretends to be a teenage boy, arranges for a meeting at his house wherein the girl is trapped.
Equally, there’s Carol Vordeman, currently doing the rounds of Daytime TV, with a young girl who was ‘nearly’ duped into meeting an adult, talking about the dangers of chat room. Apparently she has petitioned Yahoo.co.uk and several others of the larger Internet businesses, who offer chat room services to, amongst other demands, stop children’s chat rooms being run. And is currently attempting to use media based bullying tactics to see that these demands are implemented.
This strikes me as being largely pointless since, if the chat rooms remove the Teen-Chat, then children and teenagers will just use the other chat rooms. And even if the group succeed in removing chat rooms from the British internet businesses, they still have to deal with the problem that it is not only a simple matter for anyone to set-up their own chat room. But also that American (and other countries) who have not interest in a minor British celebs opinion will continue with their chat rooms, unabated. Thereby globaliseing the problem making it much harder to handle.
Why no one has yet put forward the idea of education to solve such problems confuses me…
I haven’t used a chat room since about 1995/96, (Which is about the time it stopped being about pointless chatter and more about c-sex), and even then I wasn’t all that fussed about them. However, I understand (cos I went to a few as I was typing this J) that most chat rooms, before you enter, show you certain rules and guidelines for use (usually in quite big capital letters too)… Not giving out personal details, never assume the person is who they say they are, never arrange to meet, etc… If these rules were followed then chatting would be a perfectly harmless activity…
It strikes me that if people were taught to consider other people in chat rooms as if they were strangers (strangely enough) then there would be no problems… I real life, you may chat to someone on the tube, but you would never give them your phone number, or arrange to meet them later for drinks…
Also, the large amounts of money currently being spent on advertising the chat room paedophiles could be used to better effect on stopping a large number of standard paedophile cases from continuing.
Is it right that someone should use child abuse as a means to boost his or her flagging career?
Shouldn’t the cause of the problem be tackled directly rather than the resulting symptoms?
This being, (although I’m sure everyone already knows), the activity of paedophiles to use chat rooms to manipulate children, supposedly talking them into a meeting at some point.
Now, if this is happening, it is a terrible thing, and it does need to be stopped.
But I cant help feeling that the scare tactics used by the popular media are only causing unnecessary problems, making the situation worse, and helping no-one but the Newspapers bank balance.
I understand that there are about two soaps currently running a story about teenage girls being talked into a meeting with a paedophile. Wherein the offender pretends to be a teenage boy, arranges for a meeting at his house wherein the girl is trapped.
Equally, there’s Carol Vordeman, currently doing the rounds of Daytime TV, with a young girl who was ‘nearly’ duped into meeting an adult, talking about the dangers of chat room. Apparently she has petitioned Yahoo.co.uk and several others of the larger Internet businesses, who offer chat room services to, amongst other demands, stop children’s chat rooms being run. And is currently attempting to use media based bullying tactics to see that these demands are implemented.
This strikes me as being largely pointless since, if the chat rooms remove the Teen-Chat, then children and teenagers will just use the other chat rooms. And even if the group succeed in removing chat rooms from the British internet businesses, they still have to deal with the problem that it is not only a simple matter for anyone to set-up their own chat room. But also that American (and other countries) who have not interest in a minor British celebs opinion will continue with their chat rooms, unabated. Thereby globaliseing the problem making it much harder to handle.
Why no one has yet put forward the idea of education to solve such problems confuses me…
I haven’t used a chat room since about 1995/96, (Which is about the time it stopped being about pointless chatter and more about c-sex), and even then I wasn’t all that fussed about them. However, I understand (cos I went to a few as I was typing this J) that most chat rooms, before you enter, show you certain rules and guidelines for use (usually in quite big capital letters too)… Not giving out personal details, never assume the person is who they say they are, never arrange to meet, etc… If these rules were followed then chatting would be a perfectly harmless activity…
It strikes me that if people were taught to consider other people in chat rooms as if they were strangers (strangely enough) then there would be no problems… I real life, you may chat to someone on the tube, but you would never give them your phone number, or arrange to meet them later for drinks…
Also, the large amounts of money currently being spent on advertising the chat room paedophiles could be used to better effect on stopping a large number of standard paedophile cases from continuing.
Is it right that someone should use child abuse as a means to boost his or her flagging career?
Shouldn’t the cause of the problem be tackled directly rather than the resulting symptoms?
Page:
Armitage Shanks wrote:
>You said they did... That was the
> premise of your argument that people did these things on >the net and
> werent properly punished...
I never said no one was punished, just that a majority were not, i.e 99% The DOD actually confirms that just 4 operations took place against suspected hacker's locations so that is not many arrests. This serves to give my argument proof because in this case action was taken which resulted in a decline in that kind of internet crime. Take this Code Red virus, if no one is caught for it then more and more people will create such things and release them, but if we all turn our tv's on in a few days time to see a pile of SWAT/Special forces storming the creators place and dragging him out and he gets a major sentence then its going to make people think twice.
>Which also links to your law is
> law... if someone has broken the law in a country then >they should
> be extradited.
Exactly, SHOULD be, but only if the countries are in agreement is it actually possible in most cases. What on earht would be the benefit of extraditing someone for a pokemon site ? How many people is a pokemon site exploiting ? Erm none ? What actual real reason could Iran give the UK government that wouldnt cause vast laughter ?
>(pronography illigal in Britan, but legal where the
> wb page is published, evey pokemon website owner which >can be seen
> in islam)
you're missing a major point here. Do you think anyone in an islamic country has actually a desire to see pokemon ? A little research would show that countries with strict laws on what is accepatable ( i.e Iran ) have put major controls over their few ISP's meaning anything remotely questionable is filtered out. I think you'll find not all pornography is illegal over here, though thankfully a lot of it is.
>If the law is the law, just because we see Islams laws
> as being ratherill-considered, doesnt mean that they >shouldnt be
> able to extradite, laws are laws after all??
Yes laws are laws, but how many people are looking at pokemon sites when they shouldnt be as opposed to people looking at illegal pornongraphy, warez, crackz, DVD copying programs e.t.c ? In islamic countries you'd probably find that internet access is severely monitored and restricted because the nature of the governments dictates it is. Many Islamic leaders have, in interviews on National Geogrpahic tv and magazine, admitted that a few aspects of their laws do not have releveance in today's world. Would it not be reasonable to expect any true follower ( a wide ranging term ) of Islam would not even be searching for Pokemon hmm ?? If you differentiate between the crime of publishing a pokemon site and publishing illegal/exploitative content then which is the more serious ? I know which I think....
>You think that if Islam policed the net, that UK, America, >etc
> would allow people to be extradited for creating Pokemon
> websites?
Nope, I already said that. Islamic countires would never seriously request that, and no right minded government would even listen. Seriously. saying that this Pokemon thing is as serious as publishing explicit/exploitative/illegal content is a poor argument.
>Besides, you dont have to place the net to find Pokemon
> sites... I believe that TV advertises them?
Western TV yes, and some places in the Middle East have access but all local content is different. Seeing as it would be blatant law breaking and end in a license revocation for the network for that country its sensible to see that the adverts arent shown where they cannot be.
>To consider
> yourself hidden on the net ever is a lie...
>The internet provides
> the most powerful medium for moderating a persons actions >movements,
> interests, etc...
Don't agree. Its the opposite at the moment. The internet provides the most powerful medium for unlimited actions by a person with almost no fear of actions being taken if they break the law. aS for interests, the internet's one saving grace is that it allows people to pursue new interests they previously had no info on, e.g Different religions, new tv shows, online gaming. The trouble is that some people's new interest is on the darker side... I believe the a point of your argument is that the net is, and should remain, unmoderated. If it is "moderating" how come there is anything you care to imagine onthe net ? Answer = its unmoderated.
>Which is why it is so important not to allow
> people to easily moderate people actions, movements, >etc...
Why ? Who has anything to fear if they are within the law ? The point about pop up windows users have no control over is not really a good one as the content of these kinds of windows is geneally text or legal pictures. If you click on these windows then.....as one quote from a person whose name escapes me says ;
"ignorance is the defence of the guilty"
>It is
> however possible to hide your tracks completly if you >know how to...
LOL ! Yeah using programs, you really belive agencies would allow programs like that to exist if they worked. Where are al the best hackers ( mostly ) ? Sitting in various agencies computer departments tracking those who break the law.
> Policing the net will only allow policing for the average
> individual... if someone knows what they are doing, then >police wont
> be able to find them, tocatch them
Local police maybe, but already agencies like Interpol, MI5 and the FBI are proving adept at countering crime of this type and this capability will grow.
---
>With regard to porn...
> There was porn, and a multi million dollar porn industry >before the
> net... And, even if its bigger now, whats wrong with porn?
Well firstly thanks for proving my point, thanks to the net its now a Billion dollar industry so that proves its expanded. Secondly the FBI in a study last year estimated as much as 25% of the industry had illegal links to organised crime, drugs, prostitution and violent crime. As for whats wrong with porn ? Its matter of taste, a line has o be drawn as to what it is acceptable to portray when it is so easy for minors to access such sites.
>If
> people are going to be suggestable/get turned on by a >certain act,
> the internet isnt going to stop them finding out about >it... or
> doing it...
Blatantly false statement that. The internet helps and makes it easier, I believe the start of this was about kids in chat rooms. How easy is it for some sick paedophile to talk to kids in real life and to hide his/her identity without parents noticing ? Anyone in an internet chat site can be who they want to be and no one can prove otherwise, which is a major problem. Every month sees new arrests made when police seize computers with illegal pornographic material on them, now people can buy porn magazines, but he content is at least legal. The internet lets people find any illegal/sick/twisted stuff they want and they create a demand for new material. Thousands of unknown victims are being created because people create a demand for something. AS for finding out information, well say I go to my library, or Waterstones, and look for a book on explosives or to my computer store for a program to crack passwords ? Would I be able to obtain them, doubt it ! On the internet, different story. The internet has everything on it and access is at most, a credit card away. not even that in many cases.
Also the internet makes it easy to make profit from illegal material, how do sex sites make money - membership. Now how about if those same sites tried advertising in a national paper in the same way they do on their own sites. I dont mean text, i mean full page adverts like they put on their sites. You seriously belive they would even be accepted ? Remember that money from illegal content/sites/ warez all goes to somewhere and in the vast majority of cases its organised crime. Russia is already a major OC hotbed and western governments should take every oppurtunity possible to prevent its spread.
---
>Even with Web Site, its easy enough to
> create another web site when one is taken down... you can >put up a
> site in another country within 340 mins of it being taken >down in
> the last.
Not if you're in handcuffs and your computers have been seized, your propery searched and seized and all other materials seized.
---
>The most important point to mention here is that
> the Internet is a form of communication...
>WWW is a medium...
> Telnet, is a medium, Video pictures is a mediuum... The Internet is
> a way to transfer information to support the medium...
>Its often
> forgotten that Web Browsing, etc.. is not the Internet, >its a medium
> that uses the internet to exist...
All mediums are controlled, apart from the internet. Web browsing is what people look at but content is internet based. Name another medium with no controls which offers text, video, photographs. Films, TV, telephone, music, books, all are policed.
Finally, I realy hope whoeve unleashed this Code Red worm wakes up to a sledgehammer through his/her door one day :) Its about time a clear message was sent to all prospective net law breakers.
>You said they did... That was the
> premise of your argument that people did these things on >the net and
> werent properly punished...
I never said no one was punished, just that a majority were not, i.e 99% The DOD actually confirms that just 4 operations took place against suspected hacker's locations so that is not many arrests. This serves to give my argument proof because in this case action was taken which resulted in a decline in that kind of internet crime. Take this Code Red virus, if no one is caught for it then more and more people will create such things and release them, but if we all turn our tv's on in a few days time to see a pile of SWAT/Special forces storming the creators place and dragging him out and he gets a major sentence then its going to make people think twice.
>Which also links to your law is
> law... if someone has broken the law in a country then >they should
> be extradited.
Exactly, SHOULD be, but only if the countries are in agreement is it actually possible in most cases. What on earht would be the benefit of extraditing someone for a pokemon site ? How many people is a pokemon site exploiting ? Erm none ? What actual real reason could Iran give the UK government that wouldnt cause vast laughter ?
>(pronography illigal in Britan, but legal where the
> wb page is published, evey pokemon website owner which >can be seen
> in islam)
you're missing a major point here. Do you think anyone in an islamic country has actually a desire to see pokemon ? A little research would show that countries with strict laws on what is accepatable ( i.e Iran ) have put major controls over their few ISP's meaning anything remotely questionable is filtered out. I think you'll find not all pornography is illegal over here, though thankfully a lot of it is.
>If the law is the law, just because we see Islams laws
> as being ratherill-considered, doesnt mean that they >shouldnt be
> able to extradite, laws are laws after all??
Yes laws are laws, but how many people are looking at pokemon sites when they shouldnt be as opposed to people looking at illegal pornongraphy, warez, crackz, DVD copying programs e.t.c ? In islamic countries you'd probably find that internet access is severely monitored and restricted because the nature of the governments dictates it is. Many Islamic leaders have, in interviews on National Geogrpahic tv and magazine, admitted that a few aspects of their laws do not have releveance in today's world. Would it not be reasonable to expect any true follower ( a wide ranging term ) of Islam would not even be searching for Pokemon hmm ?? If you differentiate between the crime of publishing a pokemon site and publishing illegal/exploitative content then which is the more serious ? I know which I think....
>You think that if Islam policed the net, that UK, America, >etc
> would allow people to be extradited for creating Pokemon
> websites?
Nope, I already said that. Islamic countires would never seriously request that, and no right minded government would even listen. Seriously. saying that this Pokemon thing is as serious as publishing explicit/exploitative/illegal content is a poor argument.
>Besides, you dont have to place the net to find Pokemon
> sites... I believe that TV advertises them?
Western TV yes, and some places in the Middle East have access but all local content is different. Seeing as it would be blatant law breaking and end in a license revocation for the network for that country its sensible to see that the adverts arent shown where they cannot be.
>To consider
> yourself hidden on the net ever is a lie...
>The internet provides
> the most powerful medium for moderating a persons actions >movements,
> interests, etc...
Don't agree. Its the opposite at the moment. The internet provides the most powerful medium for unlimited actions by a person with almost no fear of actions being taken if they break the law. aS for interests, the internet's one saving grace is that it allows people to pursue new interests they previously had no info on, e.g Different religions, new tv shows, online gaming. The trouble is that some people's new interest is on the darker side... I believe the a point of your argument is that the net is, and should remain, unmoderated. If it is "moderating" how come there is anything you care to imagine onthe net ? Answer = its unmoderated.
>Which is why it is so important not to allow
> people to easily moderate people actions, movements, >etc...
Why ? Who has anything to fear if they are within the law ? The point about pop up windows users have no control over is not really a good one as the content of these kinds of windows is geneally text or legal pictures. If you click on these windows then.....as one quote from a person whose name escapes me says ;
"ignorance is the defence of the guilty"
>It is
> however possible to hide your tracks completly if you >know how to...
LOL ! Yeah using programs, you really belive agencies would allow programs like that to exist if they worked. Where are al the best hackers ( mostly ) ? Sitting in various agencies computer departments tracking those who break the law.
> Policing the net will only allow policing for the average
> individual... if someone knows what they are doing, then >police wont
> be able to find them, tocatch them
Local police maybe, but already agencies like Interpol, MI5 and the FBI are proving adept at countering crime of this type and this capability will grow.
---
>With regard to porn...
> There was porn, and a multi million dollar porn industry >before the
> net... And, even if its bigger now, whats wrong with porn?
Well firstly thanks for proving my point, thanks to the net its now a Billion dollar industry so that proves its expanded. Secondly the FBI in a study last year estimated as much as 25% of the industry had illegal links to organised crime, drugs, prostitution and violent crime. As for whats wrong with porn ? Its matter of taste, a line has o be drawn as to what it is acceptable to portray when it is so easy for minors to access such sites.
>If
> people are going to be suggestable/get turned on by a >certain act,
> the internet isnt going to stop them finding out about >it... or
> doing it...
Blatantly false statement that. The internet helps and makes it easier, I believe the start of this was about kids in chat rooms. How easy is it for some sick paedophile to talk to kids in real life and to hide his/her identity without parents noticing ? Anyone in an internet chat site can be who they want to be and no one can prove otherwise, which is a major problem. Every month sees new arrests made when police seize computers with illegal pornographic material on them, now people can buy porn magazines, but he content is at least legal. The internet lets people find any illegal/sick/twisted stuff they want and they create a demand for new material. Thousands of unknown victims are being created because people create a demand for something. AS for finding out information, well say I go to my library, or Waterstones, and look for a book on explosives or to my computer store for a program to crack passwords ? Would I be able to obtain them, doubt it ! On the internet, different story. The internet has everything on it and access is at most, a credit card away. not even that in many cases.
Also the internet makes it easy to make profit from illegal material, how do sex sites make money - membership. Now how about if those same sites tried advertising in a national paper in the same way they do on their own sites. I dont mean text, i mean full page adverts like they put on their sites. You seriously belive they would even be accepted ? Remember that money from illegal content/sites/ warez all goes to somewhere and in the vast majority of cases its organised crime. Russia is already a major OC hotbed and western governments should take every oppurtunity possible to prevent its spread.
---
>Even with Web Site, its easy enough to
> create another web site when one is taken down... you can >put up a
> site in another country within 340 mins of it being taken >down in
> the last.
Not if you're in handcuffs and your computers have been seized, your propery searched and seized and all other materials seized.
---
>The most important point to mention here is that
> the Internet is a form of communication...
>WWW is a medium...
> Telnet, is a medium, Video pictures is a mediuum... The Internet is
> a way to transfer information to support the medium...
>Its often
> forgotten that Web Browsing, etc.. is not the Internet, >its a medium
> that uses the internet to exist...
All mediums are controlled, apart from the internet. Web browsing is what people look at but content is internet based. Name another medium with no controls which offers text, video, photographs. Films, TV, telephone, music, books, all are policed.
Finally, I realy hope whoeve unleashed this Code Red worm wakes up to a sledgehammer through his/her door one day :) Its about time a clear message was sent to all prospective net law breakers.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> Armitage Shanks wrote:
>Which goes against everything
>
> you've just said?
Well if you quote half the paragraph it
> does.......
The idea that Islam would want to extradite you for
> Pokemon ? What would any country gain from that, apart from the
> international community thiking it was a joke.
What I said isn't contrary to anything I've said. If you did do
> something on your site which majorly endangered Chinese security
> then you'd know about it. As it is no one does things like this on
> the internet because they know they will be found. DOD officials in
> America have managed to halve the numbers of attempted hacks after
> they arrested several hackers last year.
You said they did... That was the premise of your argument that people did these things on the net and werent properly punished...
Which also links to your law is law... if someone has broken the law in a country then they should be extradited
(pronography illigal in Britan, but legal where the wb page is published, evey pokemon website owner which can be seen in islam)
If the law is the law, just because we see Islams laws as being ratherill-considered, doesnt mean that they shouldnt be able to extradite, laws are laws after all??
The reason there are
> hardly any extradition requests is because no one is policing the
> net....... which I thought was the point of this !
You think that if Islam policed the net, that UK, America, etc would allow people to be extradited for creating Pokemon websites?
Besides, you dont have to place the net to find Pokemon sites... I believe that TV advertises them?
The fact that
> so many people are unwilling to embrace the idea of policing the
> internet says a lot about them. Too many people have the notion that
> the internet is untraceable, that so called programs will hide thier
> locations, what they do e.t.c A whole industry has sprang up to
> allow users to hide their tracks, erase documents, protect from
> viruses. Without the internet their would be no viruses to protect
> against !
To consider yourself hidden on the net ever is a lie...
The internet provides the most powerful medium for moderating a persons actions movements, interests, etc...
Which is why it is so important not to allow people to easily moderate people actions, movements, etc...
It is however possible to hide your tracks completly if you know how to... Policing the net will only allow policing for the average individual... if someone knows what they are doing, then police wont be able to find them, tocatch them
---
With regard to porn... There was porn, and a multi million dollar porn industry before the net... And, even if its bigger now, whats wrong with porn?
I'm not going to say I do or do not own porn (since if I say I do I'm a sympathisor, and if I say I dont, I'm covering my tracks)
If people are going to be suggestable/get turned on by a certain act, the internet isnt going to stop them finding out about it... or doing it...
---
Even with Web Site, its easy enough to create another web site when one is taken down... you can put up a site in another country within 340 mins of it being taken down in the last.
---
The most important point to mention here is that the Internet is a form of communication...
WWW is a medium... Telnet, is a medium, Video pictures is a mediuum... The Internet is a way to transfer information to support the medium...
Its often forgotten that Web Browsing, etc.. is not the Internet, its a medium that uses the internet to exist...
> Armitage Shanks wrote:
>Which goes against everything
>
> you've just said?
Well if you quote half the paragraph it
> does.......
The idea that Islam would want to extradite you for
> Pokemon ? What would any country gain from that, apart from the
> international community thiking it was a joke.
What I said isn't contrary to anything I've said. If you did do
> something on your site which majorly endangered Chinese security
> then you'd know about it. As it is no one does things like this on
> the internet because they know they will be found. DOD officials in
> America have managed to halve the numbers of attempted hacks after
> they arrested several hackers last year.
You said they did... That was the premise of your argument that people did these things on the net and werent properly punished...
Which also links to your law is law... if someone has broken the law in a country then they should be extradited
(pronography illigal in Britan, but legal where the wb page is published, evey pokemon website owner which can be seen in islam)
If the law is the law, just because we see Islams laws as being ratherill-considered, doesnt mean that they shouldnt be able to extradite, laws are laws after all??
The reason there are
> hardly any extradition requests is because no one is policing the
> net....... which I thought was the point of this !
You think that if Islam policed the net, that UK, America, etc would allow people to be extradited for creating Pokemon websites?
Besides, you dont have to place the net to find Pokemon sites... I believe that TV advertises them?
The fact that
> so many people are unwilling to embrace the idea of policing the
> internet says a lot about them. Too many people have the notion that
> the internet is untraceable, that so called programs will hide thier
> locations, what they do e.t.c A whole industry has sprang up to
> allow users to hide their tracks, erase documents, protect from
> viruses. Without the internet their would be no viruses to protect
> against !
To consider yourself hidden on the net ever is a lie...
The internet provides the most powerful medium for moderating a persons actions movements, interests, etc...
Which is why it is so important not to allow people to easily moderate people actions, movements, etc...
It is however possible to hide your tracks completly if you know how to... Policing the net will only allow policing for the average individual... if someone knows what they are doing, then police wont be able to find them, tocatch them
---
With regard to porn... There was porn, and a multi million dollar porn industry before the net... And, even if its bigger now, whats wrong with porn?
I'm not going to say I do or do not own porn (since if I say I do I'm a sympathisor, and if I say I dont, I'm covering my tracks)
If people are going to be suggestable/get turned on by a certain act, the internet isnt going to stop them finding out about it... or doing it...
---
Even with Web Site, its easy enough to create another web site when one is taken down... you can put up a site in another country within 340 mins of it being taken down in the last.
---
The most important point to mention here is that the Internet is a form of communication...
WWW is a medium... Telnet, is a medium, Video pictures is a mediuum... The Internet is a way to transfer information to support the medium...
Its often forgotten that Web Browsing, etc.. is not the Internet, its a medium that uses the internet to exist...
*wanders in with oranges and a rubdown for half-time*
Ok chaps, now get in your corners and remember, one of you is right and the other is wrong.
Rested?
Ok, seconds out..round..er...9?
Ok chaps, now get in your corners and remember, one of you is right and the other is wrong.
Rested?
Ok, seconds out..round..er...9?
Armitage Shanks wrote:
>Which goes against everything
> you've just said?
Well if you quote half the paragraph it does.......
The idea that Islam would want to extradite you for Pokemon ? What would any country gain from that, apart from the international community thiking it was a joke. The point I made was that for action to be taken their must, currently, be sufficient reason and a crime must be committed that both countries will agree is illegal. Unless both countries agree then taking action is not usually politically safe. Using your example, of Pokemon... , Iraq decideds your the owner of this bad bad Pokemon site and decides you are to be brought to trial, our government tells them to get lost, what do they do now ? Send people to get you ? Erm...nope they'd never get out of the country even if they got in, and a success would give the US/UK alliance and media the reason it needs for a whole new Iraq campaign.
AS anyone reading this whol thread can see enforcement of the law is far from simple. A reverse situation, the UK wanting an iraqi national arrested would play out differently e.g. We request his extradition, if they say no then one night the guy just disappears and a few days later hes magically in the UK. If no one believes the UK/US is incapable of this think again !
What I said isn't contrary to anything I've said. If you did do something on your site which majorly endangered Chinese security then you'd know about it. As it is no one does things like this on the internet because they know they will be found. DOD officials in America have managed to halve the numbers of attempted hacks after they arrested several hackers last year.
The reason there are hardly any extradition requests is because no one is policing the net....... which I thought was the point of this !
The fact that so many people are unwilling to embrace the idea of policing the internet says a lot about them. Too many people have the notion that the internet is untraceable, that so called programs will hide thier locations, what they do e.t.c A whole industry has sprang up to allow users to hide their tracks, erase documents, protect from viruses. Without the internet their would be no viruses to protect against !
>Which goes against everything
> you've just said?
Well if you quote half the paragraph it does.......
The idea that Islam would want to extradite you for Pokemon ? What would any country gain from that, apart from the international community thiking it was a joke. The point I made was that for action to be taken their must, currently, be sufficient reason and a crime must be committed that both countries will agree is illegal. Unless both countries agree then taking action is not usually politically safe. Using your example, of Pokemon... , Iraq decideds your the owner of this bad bad Pokemon site and decides you are to be brought to trial, our government tells them to get lost, what do they do now ? Send people to get you ? Erm...nope they'd never get out of the country even if they got in, and a success would give the US/UK alliance and media the reason it needs for a whole new Iraq campaign.
AS anyone reading this whol thread can see enforcement of the law is far from simple. A reverse situation, the UK wanting an iraqi national arrested would play out differently e.g. We request his extradition, if they say no then one night the guy just disappears and a few days later hes magically in the UK. If no one believes the UK/US is incapable of this think again !
What I said isn't contrary to anything I've said. If you did do something on your site which majorly endangered Chinese security then you'd know about it. As it is no one does things like this on the internet because they know they will be found. DOD officials in America have managed to halve the numbers of attempted hacks after they arrested several hackers last year.
The reason there are hardly any extradition requests is because no one is policing the net....... which I thought was the point of this !
The fact that so many people are unwilling to embrace the idea of policing the internet says a lot about them. Too many people have the notion that the internet is untraceable, that so called programs will hide thier locations, what they do e.t.c A whole industry has sprang up to allow users to hide their tracks, erase documents, protect from viruses. Without the internet their would be no viruses to protect against !
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
Really ? What a strange town you must live
> in. I only live in a small town and all shops have a zero tolerance
> policy, as do most major chains across the UK.
Really? I've liven in London, Britsol, Malvern, Worcester, Basignstoke, Camberley... and whether a village, town or city, most shops wont prosecute shoplifters... especially chain stores... its not finacncially viable for them...
Police offciers
> overlooking drug use ? Not the case, certainly with cannabis you are
> more likely to be just warned if its your own personal use but if
> youre caught growing it, thats different. If it becomes acceptable
> that using cannabis is okay, then what other similar class drugs ?
> Then higher class drugs....
Thats right... first your smoking a ciggie and drinking a pint... next your a heroin addict on the streets :)
Amsterdam has shown a mrked drop in class A abuse sine the de-criminilastion of Cannabis... The link between smoking pot and moving onto harder drugs isnt really believed any more outside the states...
the moment we start bending the law it
> becomes useless.
The law is always being bet and broken... every day... from the rich and famouse being let off crimes... to active racism, sexism from the police.
The world is imperfect... once you start expecting everything to work to the law then everything will start to fall apart...
This is exactly the problem on the net, the law is
> bent, then broken and twisted.
It happens less on the net than it does in reality...
> And wheres that figure from ?
MET office.
> How about the fact a lot of crime is never detected eh ?
That is the figure for crimes the police attempt to solve but fail...
You say
> "real world", as if net crime doesnt effect the real
> world, well it does.
Your missing the point here... I was showing you that real world crime fails as much if not more than internet crime...
Just because mugging isnt on the news as much as internet porn, doesnt mean its happening less, just that the media is scandalising internet crime today...
It has. Once content is on your HD it
> falls under jurisdiction of your country.
They arnt instigating this... its too varibale...
For example... I'm currently designing a Web Page on Shakespear... whereupon, when visiting a site with information on the characters in his play, I was offered a pop-up ad about betty doing hard core video sex on demand... I didnt ask for this to be on my hard drive... yet by viewing the page it immeadiatly gets put there...
If you break the law from
> antoehr country then the country whose law you broke can press
> charges and apply for extradition in most cases. If you break your
> own countries laws then you can be charged, if you harass people
> using email then you can be charged. The laws are there and in place
> waiting to be enforced.
We've covered this already ???
Besides, if this was the case... where are all the extradition requests for othe countries?
I'm putting Pokemon stuff on the net... why is Islam extraditing me? Since it is illeagal to have anytinhg to do with Pokemon there?
The Chinese could not
> extradite you without the UK governments position, unless they
> wanted you so badly they were prepared to risk damaging already
> fragile US/UK relations with China. Extradition, by its very nature,
Which goes against everything you've just said?
Really ? What a strange town you must live
> in. I only live in a small town and all shops have a zero tolerance
> policy, as do most major chains across the UK.
Really? I've liven in London, Britsol, Malvern, Worcester, Basignstoke, Camberley... and whether a village, town or city, most shops wont prosecute shoplifters... especially chain stores... its not finacncially viable for them...
Police offciers
> overlooking drug use ? Not the case, certainly with cannabis you are
> more likely to be just warned if its your own personal use but if
> youre caught growing it, thats different. If it becomes acceptable
> that using cannabis is okay, then what other similar class drugs ?
> Then higher class drugs....
Thats right... first your smoking a ciggie and drinking a pint... next your a heroin addict on the streets :)
Amsterdam has shown a mrked drop in class A abuse sine the de-criminilastion of Cannabis... The link between smoking pot and moving onto harder drugs isnt really believed any more outside the states...
the moment we start bending the law it
> becomes useless.
The law is always being bet and broken... every day... from the rich and famouse being let off crimes... to active racism, sexism from the police.
The world is imperfect... once you start expecting everything to work to the law then everything will start to fall apart...
This is exactly the problem on the net, the law is
> bent, then broken and twisted.
It happens less on the net than it does in reality...
> And wheres that figure from ?
MET office.
> How about the fact a lot of crime is never detected eh ?
That is the figure for crimes the police attempt to solve but fail...
You say
> "real world", as if net crime doesnt effect the real
> world, well it does.
Your missing the point here... I was showing you that real world crime fails as much if not more than internet crime...
Just because mugging isnt on the news as much as internet porn, doesnt mean its happening less, just that the media is scandalising internet crime today...
It has. Once content is on your HD it
> falls under jurisdiction of your country.
They arnt instigating this... its too varibale...
For example... I'm currently designing a Web Page on Shakespear... whereupon, when visiting a site with information on the characters in his play, I was offered a pop-up ad about betty doing hard core video sex on demand... I didnt ask for this to be on my hard drive... yet by viewing the page it immeadiatly gets put there...
If you break the law from
> antoehr country then the country whose law you broke can press
> charges and apply for extradition in most cases. If you break your
> own countries laws then you can be charged, if you harass people
> using email then you can be charged. The laws are there and in place
> waiting to be enforced.
We've covered this already ???
Besides, if this was the case... where are all the extradition requests for othe countries?
I'm putting Pokemon stuff on the net... why is Islam extraditing me? Since it is illeagal to have anytinhg to do with Pokemon there?
The Chinese could not
> extradite you without the UK governments position, unless they
> wanted you so badly they were prepared to risk damaging already
> fragile US/UK relations with China. Extradition, by its very nature,
Which goes against everything you've just said?
Armitage Shanks wrote
>Not
> really... I think its pretty accurate to your statement. >as it
> reads...
Hah ! I never even mentioned ethnic cleansing ! You missed the point entirely.
>its a crime to own cannabis, but
> most police officers will overlook ownership of reasonable
> amounts... Shoplifiting that Mars bar is an offense, but >most shops
> wont press charges...
Really ? What a strange town you must live in. I only live in a small town and all shops have a zero tolerance policy, as do most major chains across the UK. Police offciers overlooking drug use ? Not the case, certainly with cannabis you are more likely to be just warned if its your own personal use but if youre caught growing it, thats different. If it becomes acceptable that using cannabis is okay, then what other similar class drugs ? Then higher class drugs.... the moment we start bending the law it becomes useless. This is exactly the problem on the net, the law is bent, then broken and twisted.
>We have, what? a 24% success rate in real
> world crimes?
And wheres that figure from ? How about the fact a lot of crime is never detected eh ? You say "real world", as if net crime doesnt effect the real world, well it does. Anyone denying that needs to wake up because organised crime is rapidly realising the potential of the net and employing it.
>Law breaking on the net has yet to be fully
> definied...
It has. Once content is on your HD it falls under jurisdiction of your country. If you break the law from antoehr country then the country whose law you broke can press charges and apply for extradition in most cases. If you break your own countries laws then you can be charged, if you harass people using email then you can be charged. The laws are there and in place waiting to be enforced.
>no, but the
> Chinese might...
>Why is it valid for our goverment to extradite,
> but for others not to just because we dont agree?
The Chinese could not extradite you without the UK governments position, unless they wanted you so badly they were prepared to risk damaging already fragile US/UK relations with China. Extradition, by its very nature, cannot take place because one government says so, all involved parties must be in agreement. Similarily, when in Bosnia, the SAS estracted ( not extradited ) war crimes suspects under the command of NATO and this required a majority vote by the European security council. A government finds it hard to act alone because nothing can be kept secret.
>but... to quote yourself...
>A
> crime's a crime ! My example was meant
> to show that if you do
> something that harms people or breaks a law
> then you can be
> brought to justice
?Also... a natural justice... ???... come
> now
Yes I did say that, but the crime was solved, we all knew Biggs was guilty, where he was etc. You implied that net law breakers shouldnt even be tried, Biggs WAS tried, and found guilty. Natural justice is a concept many religions believe in, the idea that if you do something bad then it will inflict something bad on you later in life, its not as stupid an idea as it seems even if you your religion does not have this idea.
>No, but they arnt supermen
> collecting all manner of data ever day and night, they are
> overworked, under payed and under resourced people...
Under resourced !! Ha ha have you seen the new MI5 building under construction in the Midlands ?? Any remote look at government spending in the UK shows that the intelligence services are anything but under resourced and under paid. Northern Ireland alone ensures that, as does the the general rise in terrorism. Intelligence is rapidly becoming the new war ground for the 21st century, after all if you know who the enemy is, what they have and what theyre doing and where they are then you can find them, and destory them. Also not all funding is declared as intelligence funding, part of the special operations funding is used for intelligence as is the armies, navies, RAF's etc. They dont collect all date, just the stuff they need. RAF menwith Hill has long been a joint US/UK listening post and ex employees have individually stated that the base has the capability to monitor telphone conversations nationwide. Dont get me wrong, Im not against this kind of intelligence gathering, its not big brother, more eternal vigilance ! ( jefferson )
And to Goatboy, yup this is a rather long dragged out topic, but it only takes 5 mins to type something ! :)
>Not
> really... I think its pretty accurate to your statement. >as it
> reads...
Hah ! I never even mentioned ethnic cleansing ! You missed the point entirely.
>its a crime to own cannabis, but
> most police officers will overlook ownership of reasonable
> amounts... Shoplifiting that Mars bar is an offense, but >most shops
> wont press charges...
Really ? What a strange town you must live in. I only live in a small town and all shops have a zero tolerance policy, as do most major chains across the UK. Police offciers overlooking drug use ? Not the case, certainly with cannabis you are more likely to be just warned if its your own personal use but if youre caught growing it, thats different. If it becomes acceptable that using cannabis is okay, then what other similar class drugs ? Then higher class drugs.... the moment we start bending the law it becomes useless. This is exactly the problem on the net, the law is bent, then broken and twisted.
>We have, what? a 24% success rate in real
> world crimes?
And wheres that figure from ? How about the fact a lot of crime is never detected eh ? You say "real world", as if net crime doesnt effect the real world, well it does. Anyone denying that needs to wake up because organised crime is rapidly realising the potential of the net and employing it.
>Law breaking on the net has yet to be fully
> definied...
It has. Once content is on your HD it falls under jurisdiction of your country. If you break the law from antoehr country then the country whose law you broke can press charges and apply for extradition in most cases. If you break your own countries laws then you can be charged, if you harass people using email then you can be charged. The laws are there and in place waiting to be enforced.
>no, but the
> Chinese might...
>Why is it valid for our goverment to extradite,
> but for others not to just because we dont agree?
The Chinese could not extradite you without the UK governments position, unless they wanted you so badly they were prepared to risk damaging already fragile US/UK relations with China. Extradition, by its very nature, cannot take place because one government says so, all involved parties must be in agreement. Similarily, when in Bosnia, the SAS estracted ( not extradited ) war crimes suspects under the command of NATO and this required a majority vote by the European security council. A government finds it hard to act alone because nothing can be kept secret.
>but... to quote yourself...
>A
> crime's a crime ! My example was meant
> to show that if you do
> something that harms people or breaks a law
> then you can be
> brought to justice
?Also... a natural justice... ???... come
> now
Yes I did say that, but the crime was solved, we all knew Biggs was guilty, where he was etc. You implied that net law breakers shouldnt even be tried, Biggs WAS tried, and found guilty. Natural justice is a concept many religions believe in, the idea that if you do something bad then it will inflict something bad on you later in life, its not as stupid an idea as it seems even if you your religion does not have this idea.
>No, but they arnt supermen
> collecting all manner of data ever day and night, they are
> overworked, under payed and under resourced people...
Under resourced !! Ha ha have you seen the new MI5 building under construction in the Midlands ?? Any remote look at government spending in the UK shows that the intelligence services are anything but under resourced and under paid. Northern Ireland alone ensures that, as does the the general rise in terrorism. Intelligence is rapidly becoming the new war ground for the 21st century, after all if you know who the enemy is, what they have and what theyre doing and where they are then you can find them, and destory them. Also not all funding is declared as intelligence funding, part of the special operations funding is used for intelligence as is the armies, navies, RAF's etc. They dont collect all date, just the stuff they need. RAF menwith Hill has long been a joint US/UK listening post and ex employees have individually stated that the base has the capability to monitor telphone conversations nationwide. Dont get me wrong, Im not against this kind of intelligence gathering, its not big brother, more eternal vigilance ! ( jefferson )
And to Goatboy, yup this is a rather long dragged out topic, but it only takes 5 mins to type something ! :)
Goatboy wrote:
Just get 'em out and compare
> sizes, get it over with.
lol@GB ...
You have an almost unnerving obsession with monkeys and male genitalia man! :)
Just get 'em out and compare
> sizes, get it over with.
lol@GB ...
You have an almost unnerving obsession with monkeys and male genitalia man! :)
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh?
> :)" was what you wrote previously. Thats twisting, nothing
> personal !
Not really... I think its pretty accurate to your statement as it reads...
A crime's a crime ! My example was meant
> to show that if you do something that harms people or breaks a law
> then you can be brought to justice. Its too common that law breaking
> on the net is treated softly.
Not really... shoftliting a Mars bar is a crime, as is murder, but they work on two totally different levels...
Its a crime to own cannabis, but most police officers will overlook ownership of reasonable amounts... Shoplifiting that Mars bar is an offense, but most shops wont press charges...
We have, what? a 24% success rate in real world crimes?
Law breaking on the net has yet to be fully definied...
>With the net
>
> especially... for example, if I publish a paper >questioning the
> rule
> of goverment in China, in doing so covering subjects
> >forbidden in
> China, should China then be allowed to
> extradite me for >criminal
> charges?
Our government would
> never extradite you for starters.....
no, but the Chinese might...
Why is it valid for our goverment to extradite, but for others not to just because we dont agree?
My point was that there was nothing to gain from getting
> Biggs back to the UK which would outbalance the cost/foreign policy
> implications of getting him. I also implied at the end that there is
> a hatural justive in this case....
but... to quote yourself...
A crime's a crime ! My example was meant
> to show that if you do something that harms people or breaks a law
> then you can be brought to justice
Also... a natural justice... ???... come now
Really ? I don't
> think they get enough credit. A common idea is that they are
> bumbling, inefficient agencies who do nothing. Maybe they wouldn't
> use the boxes to gather evidence for courts but they can legally use
> evidence from the boxes to gather other information.
No, but they arnt supermen collecting all manner of data ever day and night, they are overworked, under payed and under resourced people...
the boxes???
> ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh?
> :)" was what you wrote previously. Thats twisting, nothing
> personal !
Not really... I think its pretty accurate to your statement as it reads...
A crime's a crime ! My example was meant
> to show that if you do something that harms people or breaks a law
> then you can be brought to justice. Its too common that law breaking
> on the net is treated softly.
Not really... shoftliting a Mars bar is a crime, as is murder, but they work on two totally different levels...
Its a crime to own cannabis, but most police officers will overlook ownership of reasonable amounts... Shoplifiting that Mars bar is an offense, but most shops wont press charges...
We have, what? a 24% success rate in real world crimes?
Law breaking on the net has yet to be fully definied...
>With the net
>
> especially... for example, if I publish a paper >questioning the
> rule
> of goverment in China, in doing so covering subjects
> >forbidden in
> China, should China then be allowed to
> extradite me for >criminal
> charges?
Our government would
> never extradite you for starters.....
no, but the Chinese might...
Why is it valid for our goverment to extradite, but for others not to just because we dont agree?
My point was that there was nothing to gain from getting
> Biggs back to the UK which would outbalance the cost/foreign policy
> implications of getting him. I also implied at the end that there is
> a hatural justive in this case....
but... to quote yourself...
A crime's a crime ! My example was meant
> to show that if you do something that harms people or breaks a law
> then you can be brought to justice
Also... a natural justice... ???... come now
Really ? I don't
> think they get enough credit. A common idea is that they are
> bumbling, inefficient agencies who do nothing. Maybe they wouldn't
> use the boxes to gather evidence for courts but they can legally use
> evidence from the boxes to gather other information.
No, but they arnt supermen collecting all manner of data ever day and night, they are overworked, under payed and under resourced people...
the boxes???
You guys STILL going on this?
Damn...that's either
(a) Dedication
(b) Bordedom at work
Just get 'em out and compare sizes, get it over with.
hur-hur-hur-hur
Damn...that's either
(a) Dedication
(b) Bordedom at work
Just get 'em out and compare sizes, get it over with.
hur-hur-hur-hur
Armitage Shanks wrote:
>I'm not really twisting your words,
Really ? ">So, here your compairing attempted
> ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh? :)" was what you wrote previously. Thats twisting, nothing personal !
> more questioning the scale of your argument... compairing >the
> extradition of someone how only crime is to setup a porn >site to
> 'the SAS hunting war criminals in Bosnia is foolhardy, >they refer to
> crimes of completly different magnitudes...
A crime's a crime ! My example was meant to show that if you do something that harms people or breaks a law then you can be brought to justice. Its too common that law breaking on the net is treated softly.
>With the net
> especially... for example, if I publish a paper >questioning the rule
> of goverment in China, in doing so covering subjects >forbidden in
> China, should China then be allowed to extradite me for >criminal
> charges?
Our government would never extradite you for starters.....and unless you managed to publish subjects of National Security to Chine then they wouldn't care, especially as they are now trying to increase human rights i.e freedom of speech. If you did know any national security type things to publish, then I fins that hard to believe.
>If your
> argument was to hold, how did one of
> the
> great train >robbers manage
> to live in Brazil
> without being
> extradited?
>Well....
>a) authorities in
> Brazil didn't co operate,
> they had no reason to
>b) no public
> pressure
c) he was not worth
> the political fallout that any
> extraction would entail, in addition
> he wasnt going to commit
> any other crimes. He had already been found
> guilty so actually
> trying him for the crime was not a priority. With
> any crime
> there is a pressure to find the criminal and prove his/her
>
> guilt, this was already achieved, and really natural justice
> ensued
> in this case...Biggs is now in a UK prison and dying,
> having spent a
> vast time living in a foreign
> country.
>And... ??? ... I'm not sure where your going here?
My point was that there was nothing to gain from getting Biggs back to the UK which would outbalance the cost/foreign policy implications of getting him. I also implied at the end that there is a hatural justive in this case....
>I think your
> giving the British goverment, and its intelligence >agencies a little
> more credit than they deserve...
Really ? I don't think they get enough credit. A common idea is that they are bumbling, inefficient agencies who do nothing. Maybe they wouldn't use the boxes to gather evidence for courts but they can legally use evidence from the boxes to gather other information.
>I'm not really twisting your words,
Really ? ">So, here your compairing attempted
> ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh? :)" was what you wrote previously. Thats twisting, nothing personal !
> more questioning the scale of your argument... compairing >the
> extradition of someone how only crime is to setup a porn >site to
> 'the SAS hunting war criminals in Bosnia is foolhardy, >they refer to
> crimes of completly different magnitudes...
A crime's a crime ! My example was meant to show that if you do something that harms people or breaks a law then you can be brought to justice. Its too common that law breaking on the net is treated softly.
>With the net
> especially... for example, if I publish a paper >questioning the rule
> of goverment in China, in doing so covering subjects >forbidden in
> China, should China then be allowed to extradite me for >criminal
> charges?
Our government would never extradite you for starters.....and unless you managed to publish subjects of National Security to Chine then they wouldn't care, especially as they are now trying to increase human rights i.e freedom of speech. If you did know any national security type things to publish, then I fins that hard to believe.
>If your
> argument was to hold, how did one of
> the
> great train >robbers manage
> to live in Brazil
> without being
> extradited?
>Well....
>a) authorities in
> Brazil didn't co operate,
> they had no reason to
>b) no public
> pressure
c) he was not worth
> the political fallout that any
> extraction would entail, in addition
> he wasnt going to commit
> any other crimes. He had already been found
> guilty so actually
> trying him for the crime was not a priority. With
> any crime
> there is a pressure to find the criminal and prove his/her
>
> guilt, this was already achieved, and really natural justice
> ensued
> in this case...Biggs is now in a UK prison and dying,
> having spent a
> vast time living in a foreign
> country.
>And... ??? ... I'm not sure where your going here?
My point was that there was nothing to gain from getting Biggs back to the UK which would outbalance the cost/foreign policy implications of getting him. I also implied at the end that there is a hatural justive in this case....
>I think your
> giving the British goverment, and its intelligence >agencies a little
> more credit than they deserve...
Really ? I don't think they get enough credit. A common idea is that they are bumbling, inefficient agencies who do nothing. Maybe they wouldn't use the boxes to gather evidence for courts but they can legally use evidence from the boxes to gather other information.
Page: