The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
I'm not really twisting your words, 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...
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?
>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?
AS for the "black
> boxes" being illegal because they violate human rights...they
> are ONLY if used indiscriminately, a court can approve there use
> where it is deemed necessary....and if you think that every western
> country's intelligence/security agency is going to not use the boxes
> because of a human rights law then you're naive !
I think your giving the British goverment, and its intelligence agencies a little more credit than they deserve...
I'm not really twisting your words, 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...
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?
>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?
AS for the "black
> boxes" being illegal because they violate human rights...they
> are ONLY if used indiscriminately, a court can approve there use
> where it is deemed necessary....and if you think that every western
> country's intelligence/security agency is going to not use the boxes
> because of a human rights law then you're naive !
I think your giving the British goverment, and its intelligence agencies a little more credit than they deserve...
Armitage Shanks wrote
Would this be
> the
> same power that saw the SAS hunting war criminals in
> bosnia in 1999
> ? Or the same power that has the US hunting
> Osama Bin Laden ? If a
> person breaks the law of a country and
> commits a crime against
> another country, even if their own
> country says they acted legally,
> then it is the duty of other
> countries to bring them to justice.
> Quite a few historical
> examples for that one......
>So, here your compairing attempted
> ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh? :)
Did I mention ethnic cleansing ? Nope - you're twisting my words. Osama Bin Laden is nothing to do with ethnic cleansing, similarily many war criminals are hunted on murder charges and not obeying the geneva convention. The point was that if you break a law of a country whilst believeing you aren't then there is no reason that the country whose law you broke cannot come after you. The historical examples I was thinking of were in particular the Gulf War...Saddam wasn't breaking any of his laws when he invaded was he ? What were you thinking of ? Other examples are the Americans in Grenada, UN in Bosnia - all time when countries have acted against someone who is not breaking any of their own laws.
>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.
AS for the "black boxes" being illegal because they violate human rights...they are ONLY if used indiscriminately, a court can approve there use where it is deemed necessary....and if you think that every western country's intelligence/security agency is going to not use the boxes because of a human rights law then you're naive !
Would this be
> the
> same power that saw the SAS hunting war criminals in
> bosnia in 1999
> ? Or the same power that has the US hunting
> Osama Bin Laden ? If a
> person breaks the law of a country and
> commits a crime against
> another country, even if their own
> country says they acted legally,
> then it is the duty of other
> countries to bring them to justice.
> Quite a few historical
> examples for that one......
>So, here your compairing attempted
> ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh? :)
Did I mention ethnic cleansing ? Nope - you're twisting my words. Osama Bin Laden is nothing to do with ethnic cleansing, similarily many war criminals are hunted on murder charges and not obeying the geneva convention. The point was that if you break a law of a country whilst believeing you aren't then there is no reason that the country whose law you broke cannot come after you. The historical examples I was thinking of were in particular the Gulf War...Saddam wasn't breaking any of his laws when he invaded was he ? What were you thinking of ? Other examples are the Americans in Grenada, UN in Bosnia - all time when countries have acted against someone who is not breaking any of their own laws.
>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.
AS for the "black boxes" being illegal because they violate human rights...they are ONLY if used indiscriminately, a court can approve there use where it is deemed necessary....and if you think that every western country's intelligence/security agency is going to not use the boxes because of a human rights law then you're naive !
Now I'm blind you lot, thanks a lot!
:-)
:-)
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
> I dont get why so many people have this paranoid fear of a suppossed
> "Big brother" state. If you're not doing anything wrong
> then you've nothing to fear. As for people not wanting the
> government to be able to access their emails..
I think your missing the point... My concern here wasnt the turning of society into a Big Brother state... more that my personal freedom and human rights were being violated by much stricter controls being put on me...
I dont have children, and want to do as I wish without having people reading into my life.
Although, the Big Brother state is a very real risk... in fact I seem to remember in the book that the 'if your not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear' statement being considered in a very dim light... (I'll drag the book out and see what I can find)
> well last year new
> legislation allowed the placement of 'black boxes' at ISP's which
> can securely intercept email without anyone knowing.
I rmeber reading an article... I also seem to remeber that it goeas against the European human rights act... which will mean, in the future that they will have to change the law back
the point of it was ignored, I know you can buy them in a shop
> IRL, my point was it sold better on the internet.
Thats why I mentioned the HMV and Virgin Megastores... Both the Oxford Street and Reagent street HMV and Virgin hops have large and very open adult movie sections... Giventh the price of rent for these establishments they cant afford to stock items that arnt going to make them a good enough profit in return... and given the amount of space dedicated to Adult movies, they must be reutrning quite a large profit.
Software piracy
> isn't a person to person business, it makes it sound like some
> little part time job for someone. Its not, piracy costs the industry
> millions and feeds organised crime worldwide. The guy you see at the
> car boot is just the 'public' face of the industry. Besides this
> year has seen a major crackdown on piracy at car boots, one near me
> has been raided three times this year already and now theres no
> trace of pirated goods.
ost piracy is done in business or through friends, not as a business in its own right...
However, when the police make hauls of large numbers of pirated software, most of it wont be sold over the net.. most will be sold through outfits that look like cottage industries...
Just because it looks unprofessional, doesnt mean its not making money...
Lastly, sites which supposedly
> misdirect you or have popups are by very nature, questionable sites.
> If you think you're being mislead then just don't click !
I've been to computer magazine, and comic book sites with links to porn sites...
To flip the cion for a second, another example, there was a site that held information on quantim physics... but to get the hit count up they owner advertised the site as Nude Britney Pics...
> internet has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable to new
> limits, its within the law, just in some cases no ones asking if it
> should be......
Not at all... just because sex is more avalible it doesnt mean I've suddenly become obvsessed with getting more sex products...
I cant imagine that there are many teenage boys who havnt looked through a porno mag...
It only changes your values of whats acceptableif you allow it to...
Personally, I had long ago decided what I wanted and how far I wanted to go, because I can access more doesnt interest me.
Equally being able to access more wouldnt turn me into a sexual obsessive...
Would this be the
> same power that saw the SAS hunting war criminals in bosnia in 1999
> ? Or the same power that has the US hunting Osama Bin Laden ? If a
> person breaks the law of a country and commits a crime against
> another country, even if their own country says they acted legally,
> then it is the duty of other countries to bring them to justice.
> Quite a few historical examples for that one......
So, here your compairing attempted ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh? :)
If your argument was to hold, how did one of the great train robbers manage to live in Brazil without being extradited?
> I dont get why so many people have this paranoid fear of a suppossed
> "Big brother" state. If you're not doing anything wrong
> then you've nothing to fear. As for people not wanting the
> government to be able to access their emails..
I think your missing the point... My concern here wasnt the turning of society into a Big Brother state... more that my personal freedom and human rights were being violated by much stricter controls being put on me...
I dont have children, and want to do as I wish without having people reading into my life.
Although, the Big Brother state is a very real risk... in fact I seem to remember in the book that the 'if your not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to fear' statement being considered in a very dim light... (I'll drag the book out and see what I can find)
> well last year new
> legislation allowed the placement of 'black boxes' at ISP's which
> can securely intercept email without anyone knowing.
I rmeber reading an article... I also seem to remeber that it goeas against the European human rights act... which will mean, in the future that they will have to change the law back
the point of it was ignored, I know you can buy them in a shop
> IRL, my point was it sold better on the internet.
Thats why I mentioned the HMV and Virgin Megastores... Both the Oxford Street and Reagent street HMV and Virgin hops have large and very open adult movie sections... Giventh the price of rent for these establishments they cant afford to stock items that arnt going to make them a good enough profit in return... and given the amount of space dedicated to Adult movies, they must be reutrning quite a large profit.
Software piracy
> isn't a person to person business, it makes it sound like some
> little part time job for someone. Its not, piracy costs the industry
> millions and feeds organised crime worldwide. The guy you see at the
> car boot is just the 'public' face of the industry. Besides this
> year has seen a major crackdown on piracy at car boots, one near me
> has been raided three times this year already and now theres no
> trace of pirated goods.
ost piracy is done in business or through friends, not as a business in its own right...
However, when the police make hauls of large numbers of pirated software, most of it wont be sold over the net.. most will be sold through outfits that look like cottage industries...
Just because it looks unprofessional, doesnt mean its not making money...
Lastly, sites which supposedly
> misdirect you or have popups are by very nature, questionable sites.
> If you think you're being mislead then just don't click !
I've been to computer magazine, and comic book sites with links to porn sites...
To flip the cion for a second, another example, there was a site that held information on quantim physics... but to get the hit count up they owner advertised the site as Nude Britney Pics...
> internet has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable to new
> limits, its within the law, just in some cases no ones asking if it
> should be......
Not at all... just because sex is more avalible it doesnt mean I've suddenly become obvsessed with getting more sex products...
I cant imagine that there are many teenage boys who havnt looked through a porno mag...
It only changes your values of whats acceptableif you allow it to...
Personally, I had long ago decided what I wanted and how far I wanted to go, because I can access more doesnt interest me.
Equally being able to access more wouldnt turn me into a sexual obsessive...
Would this be the
> same power that saw the SAS hunting war criminals in bosnia in 1999
> ? Or the same power that has the US hunting Osama Bin Laden ? If a
> person breaks the law of a country and commits a crime against
> another country, even if their own country says they acted legally,
> then it is the duty of other countries to bring them to justice.
> Quite a few historical examples for that one......
So, here your compairing attempted ethnic cleasing to the production of a porn site huh? :)
If your argument was to hold, how did one of the great train robbers manage to live in Brazil without being extradited?
I dont get why so many people have this paranoid fear of a suppossed "Big brother" state. If you're not doing anything wrong then you've nothing to fear. As for people not wanting the government to be able to access their emails..well last year new legislation allowed the placement of 'black boxes' at ISP's which can securely intercept email without anyone knowing. In America the FBI/CIA/NSA have had the capability for years, it just doesn't make an interesting news story for the UK media !
If any police force was set up not involving all countries then it wouldn't matter, if you break a countries laws then it does not matter what country you are running the business from.
When you commented on my line ;
>What's the number one dvd on SR ? Erotic
> Witch project, now how many people buy adult DVDs in a >normal shop ?
the point of it was ignored, I know you can buy them in a shop IRL, my point was it sold better on the internet.
Software piracy isn't a person to person business, it makes it sound like some little part time job for someone. Its not, piracy costs the industry millions and feeds organised crime worldwide. The guy you see at the car boot is just the 'public' face of the industry. Besides this year has seen a major crackdown on piracy at car boots, one near me has been raided three times this year already and now theres no trace of pirated goods.
Lastly, sites which supposedly misdirect you or have popups are by very nature, questionable sites. If you think you're being mislead then just don't click ! Most sex sites are US based where laws are slightly different from state to state.
>I dont mean to be rude... but people were having sex >before the Internet...
Did I say they weren't ??? Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I meant that the nature of what was obtainable was limited before the internet and most people wouldn't go into a shop displaying material similar to that on the net. The internet has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable to new limits, its within the law, just in some cases no ones asking if it should be......
>Why should Britain be given the power to decide what >happend to the subject of India?
Would this be the same power that saw the SAS hunting war criminals in bosnia in 1999 ? Or the same power that has the US hunting Osama Bin Laden ? If a person breaks the law of a country and commits a crime against another country, even if their own country says they acted legally, then it is the duty of other countries to bring them to justice. Quite a few historical examples for that one......
Wookie's points about nightclubs are very true, the only difference I can see is that at least you know who you are talking to. Clubs tend to get a reputation for what they are like, cetainly even the small ones in my town had a reputation, one being known for its slightly genreous attitude in drinking ages etc, the other one being strict and demanding ID etc. Rather nicely the questionable one is now shut after being raided for about the fifth time in two years. After teh raid it just lost money and went bankcrupt.
Finally, I believe the internet will one day be policed. Why ? Because one day some group or someone is going to do one thing which will stay in peoples memories for years and that will force the authorities to finally sit up and take notice. In America the FBI has already begun to look into stting up a national taskforce, other countries are follwing suit.
If any police force was set up not involving all countries then it wouldn't matter, if you break a countries laws then it does not matter what country you are running the business from.
When you commented on my line ;
>What's the number one dvd on SR ? Erotic
> Witch project, now how many people buy adult DVDs in a >normal shop ?
the point of it was ignored, I know you can buy them in a shop IRL, my point was it sold better on the internet.
Software piracy isn't a person to person business, it makes it sound like some little part time job for someone. Its not, piracy costs the industry millions and feeds organised crime worldwide. The guy you see at the car boot is just the 'public' face of the industry. Besides this year has seen a major crackdown on piracy at car boots, one near me has been raided three times this year already and now theres no trace of pirated goods.
Lastly, sites which supposedly misdirect you or have popups are by very nature, questionable sites. If you think you're being mislead then just don't click ! Most sex sites are US based where laws are slightly different from state to state.
>I dont mean to be rude... but people were having sex >before the Internet...
Did I say they weren't ??? Maybe you misunderstood what I meant. I meant that the nature of what was obtainable was limited before the internet and most people wouldn't go into a shop displaying material similar to that on the net. The internet has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable to new limits, its within the law, just in some cases no ones asking if it should be......
>Why should Britain be given the power to decide what >happend to the subject of India?
Would this be the same power that saw the SAS hunting war criminals in bosnia in 1999 ? Or the same power that has the US hunting Osama Bin Laden ? If a person breaks the law of a country and commits a crime against another country, even if their own country says they acted legally, then it is the duty of other countries to bring them to justice. Quite a few historical examples for that one......
Wookie's points about nightclubs are very true, the only difference I can see is that at least you know who you are talking to. Clubs tend to get a reputation for what they are like, cetainly even the small ones in my town had a reputation, one being known for its slightly genreous attitude in drinking ages etc, the other one being strict and demanding ID etc. Rather nicely the questionable one is now shut after being raided for about the fifth time in two years. After teh raid it just lost money and went bankcrupt.
Finally, I believe the internet will one day be policed. Why ? Because one day some group or someone is going to do one thing which will stay in peoples memories for years and that will force the authorities to finally sit up and take notice. In America the FBI has already begun to look into stting up a national taskforce, other countries are follwing suit.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
You cannot
> buy a knife in a shop unless you're over 16 ( or is it 18 ? I forget
How hard is it to go into the cutlary draw in your home and grab a bread knife, or a meat knife? ... or a hammer ... These are the weapons most used in violent attacks...
> ) The comparison of a knife to the internet is not, to me anyway, a
> very good one. After all if you stab someone/threaten them with a
> knife then you can be arrested with no indecision as to whether you
> have broken the law.
The knife was really intended more as a statement... that if you want to break the law you can and will... as can be seen by the astronomical number of stabbings in Britain each day...
Is it a nanny state when we choose
> to protect those most vulnerable ? To stop harm coming to others, to
> stop them being exploited and used ? A quote ;
"All that's
> necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough
> good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke
But at what cost? ... I'd rather live with higher crime rate and with greater personal freedom. Than to have my movements restricted, my phone calls and emails monitored, to live under the watchful eye of Big Brother and have no crime.
An individual can do what they want, thats why most
> of the world is a democracy ! The "powers that be" should
> intervene when those wants break the law, as in what would happen in
> the real world.
It doesnt really happen that way in the 'real' world though huh? ... Most 'real' crimes go without the police catching the criminal, in many cases even knowing there was a crime commited...
Without
> the internet a lot of it wouldn't be there, whats the number one
> industry on the web ? Sex.
I dont mean to be rude... but people were having sex before the Internet...
Sex is no new thing... and if you think its the internet that brought it to the forfront of everyones mind, then you have REALLY missed quite a few meetings :)
The internet
> has turned a small time industry into a global one with links to
> organised crime and more.
Sex, a small industry?!?!?
What's the number one dvd on SR ? Erotic
> Witch project, now how many people buy adult DVDs in a normal shop ?
Enough for Oxford Street and Reagent street HMV and Virgin megasotres to have large adult film, sections... The whole adult entertainment market is huge... even without the internet...
Global policing would work with the political will
> behind it. No country stands to gain from illegal activities, and if
> not all countries want to participate then as long as the US and the
> UK are on board then it doesn't matter.
yes, it does... if the rest of Europe.. or more importantly Asian countries decide not to join then there will effectivly be no difference, people will setup companies base in these countries.. people will setup servers for these business to run from in these countries... and the whole thing will go on as before...
> Now if you set
> up a shop in a town with copied games, music or illegal porn then
> the police will have a sledge hammer on your front door faster than
> you can say "dawn raid".
No... but if you go to a car boot sale, or a market, then youre pretty much guraenteed to find a store with pirate music, priate video games, Adult movies...
The software piracy industry is carried out more on a person to person basis, than as an internet transaction (woudlyou give your card details to someone who is selling you a pirate CD-ROM?)
The point about different
> countries laws is valid, but uder UK legislation once content is on
> your hard drive it is under the jurisdcition of the UK meaning its
> point of origin is not important.
Though, this has never been tested in practice, I have heard a couple of argument against...
for instance many sites, once you enter, bring popup ads for hardcore porn sites... containing images which may be considered illegal in the UK... however, since you didnt ask for them, since they came unannounced from the site, and since every site you visit is, for a persiod of time, copied to your hard drive, should you be prosecuted for ?
Many site give misleading links, offering one kind of service, once clicked on provide another... (rather like the Britney Spears site) once the site is visited, its images are copied to my HD, does it mean I'm should be charged with breaking the law?
Same as if you hack a uk computer
> system from a place in india then you've broken UK law and should
> still be tracked down. Saying that content/actions are legal in the
> country of the websites owner is no defence.
What if hacking a UK computer isnt illeagal in India? ... Shouldnt the country your in be in charge of upholding the law...
Why should Britain be given the power to decide what happend to the subject of India?
You cannot
> buy a knife in a shop unless you're over 16 ( or is it 18 ? I forget
How hard is it to go into the cutlary draw in your home and grab a bread knife, or a meat knife? ... or a hammer ... These are the weapons most used in violent attacks...
> ) The comparison of a knife to the internet is not, to me anyway, a
> very good one. After all if you stab someone/threaten them with a
> knife then you can be arrested with no indecision as to whether you
> have broken the law.
The knife was really intended more as a statement... that if you want to break the law you can and will... as can be seen by the astronomical number of stabbings in Britain each day...
Is it a nanny state when we choose
> to protect those most vulnerable ? To stop harm coming to others, to
> stop them being exploited and used ? A quote ;
"All that's
> necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough
> good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke
But at what cost? ... I'd rather live with higher crime rate and with greater personal freedom. Than to have my movements restricted, my phone calls and emails monitored, to live under the watchful eye of Big Brother and have no crime.
An individual can do what they want, thats why most
> of the world is a democracy ! The "powers that be" should
> intervene when those wants break the law, as in what would happen in
> the real world.
It doesnt really happen that way in the 'real' world though huh? ... Most 'real' crimes go without the police catching the criminal, in many cases even knowing there was a crime commited...
Without
> the internet a lot of it wouldn't be there, whats the number one
> industry on the web ? Sex.
I dont mean to be rude... but people were having sex before the Internet...
Sex is no new thing... and if you think its the internet that brought it to the forfront of everyones mind, then you have REALLY missed quite a few meetings :)
The internet
> has turned a small time industry into a global one with links to
> organised crime and more.
Sex, a small industry?!?!?
What's the number one dvd on SR ? Erotic
> Witch project, now how many people buy adult DVDs in a normal shop ?
Enough for Oxford Street and Reagent street HMV and Virgin megasotres to have large adult film, sections... The whole adult entertainment market is huge... even without the internet...
Global policing would work with the political will
> behind it. No country stands to gain from illegal activities, and if
> not all countries want to participate then as long as the US and the
> UK are on board then it doesn't matter.
yes, it does... if the rest of Europe.. or more importantly Asian countries decide not to join then there will effectivly be no difference, people will setup companies base in these countries.. people will setup servers for these business to run from in these countries... and the whole thing will go on as before...
> Now if you set
> up a shop in a town with copied games, music or illegal porn then
> the police will have a sledge hammer on your front door faster than
> you can say "dawn raid".
No... but if you go to a car boot sale, or a market, then youre pretty much guraenteed to find a store with pirate music, priate video games, Adult movies...
The software piracy industry is carried out more on a person to person basis, than as an internet transaction (woudlyou give your card details to someone who is selling you a pirate CD-ROM?)
The point about different
> countries laws is valid, but uder UK legislation once content is on
> your hard drive it is under the jurisdcition of the UK meaning its
> point of origin is not important.
Though, this has never been tested in practice, I have heard a couple of argument against...
for instance many sites, once you enter, bring popup ads for hardcore porn sites... containing images which may be considered illegal in the UK... however, since you didnt ask for them, since they came unannounced from the site, and since every site you visit is, for a persiod of time, copied to your hard drive, should you be prosecuted for ?
Many site give misleading links, offering one kind of service, once clicked on provide another... (rather like the Britney Spears site) once the site is visited, its images are copied to my HD, does it mean I'm should be charged with breaking the law?
Same as if you hack a uk computer
> system from a place in india then you've broken UK law and should
> still be tracked down. Saying that content/actions are legal in the
> country of the websites owner is no defence.
What if hacking a UK computer isnt illeagal in India? ... Shouldnt the country your in be in charge of upholding the law...
Why should Britain be given the power to decide what happend to the subject of India?
I agree with pretty much all that's been said, but isn't the internet being unfairly singled out for such stories?
Along similar lines, something far more alarming (to me) is nightclubs.
I have a friend who's 25 in a few months, but he looks younger. About two years ago, he got turned away from Visage (local nightclub) because the boncers (sorry, 'doormen') thought he was under-age. The minimum age is 21.
The thing is, you can see young girls - obviously under-age, but dressed in skimpy outfits and plastered in make-up - are being let in with no questions asked. Why? Because they attract more guys, which means more money for the club.
Rowdy, twenty-something males, fuelled by drink (and who knows what else), in a club heaving with young girls in sexy outfits. And this happens night after night in towns and cities all over the country.
Is that not a bigger problem than internet chat rooms? More than likely. But the internet the 'big thing' of the moment, so that's what gets targetted by the media, while the rest is pretty much ignored.
Along similar lines, something far more alarming (to me) is nightclubs.
I have a friend who's 25 in a few months, but he looks younger. About two years ago, he got turned away from Visage (local nightclub) because the boncers (sorry, 'doormen') thought he was under-age. The minimum age is 21.
The thing is, you can see young girls - obviously under-age, but dressed in skimpy outfits and plastered in make-up - are being let in with no questions asked. Why? Because they attract more guys, which means more money for the club.
Rowdy, twenty-something males, fuelled by drink (and who knows what else), in a club heaving with young girls in sexy outfits. And this happens night after night in towns and cities all over the country.
Is that not a bigger problem than internet chat rooms? More than likely. But the internet the 'big thing' of the moment, so that's what gets targetted by the media, while the rest is pretty much ignored.
Overall though, wouldnt it be better to teach children to treat people in chat rooms in the same way they would a stranger in the street?
At its best, I would prefer parents to take an active interest in actions taken by their children on-line....
But realsitically this isnt going to happen...
If kids do want to go online and chat they will...
Equally, I like my priacy, I dont want the knowledge that the police my be listening in on my internet usage (isnt it considered a breach of human rights?)
The internet isnt going to go away, its never going to ba ble to be properly policed...
At its best, I would prefer parents to take an active interest in actions taken by their children on-line....
But realsitically this isnt going to happen...
If kids do want to go online and chat they will...
Equally, I like my priacy, I dont want the knowledge that the police my be listening in on my internet usage (isnt it considered a breach of human rights?)
The internet isnt going to go away, its never going to ba ble to be properly policed...
All valid points, with regards to the whole chat registration thing my ideas were more targeted at sites like Dobedo, Yahoo, MSN which make money from chat rooms and are likely to be the ones who are targetted by people intent on misuse of these services. SR is not, in my mind, a site with any kind of problem as all members can see all conversations and anyone who is out of line knows about it pretty fast, like ryjord ( not sure if that was exact name but I know he was banned for swearing ) Many sites though have automated systems for checking users info, like BT.com, so this would cut the workload, but these systems cost and seeing as SR is about keeping prices down then no one expects you to spend moeny on this sort of thing when its not needed. i've seen one site use a more advanced javascript that instantly displays a user ISP, ISP contacts and IP and will not let anyone proceed unless the Ip matches an actual ISP.
Certainly each successive generation is better equipped to combat crime. The idea of a dedicated force with its own personnel equipment is the very thing which would cut the time taken to identify illegal activity. I'm no programmer but I'm sure that a program could be written to cross reference facts and access ISP information logs.
Certainly each successive generation is better equipped to combat crime. The idea of a dedicated force with its own personnel equipment is the very thing which would cut the time taken to identify illegal activity. I'm no programmer but I'm sure that a program could be written to cross reference facts and access ISP information logs.
Page: