The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I'll try and keep this reply shorter for the sake of RBS's eyes...
I agree that there needs to be a better force policing the net, but it is still a daunting task due to the amount of activity that they would have to track. Even with a single case as you suggested, checking logs for the internet activity of every friend a certain person had would take a substantial amount of time. As it happens, this particular friend I was thinking of is perfectly likely to be the one attempting the attack...
Finding people capable of keeping up with new techniques and combatting them is also nescessary, and I think there current generation being brought up with computers is much more capable of dealing with this than a current officer givena course in computing - hackers helping the police is a start. How many police could answer the question "What are you doing to combat people leeching using Shiva?"
Finally, with regards to forcing people to sign up using an address from their ISP, it would be possible to try, but totally impractical - we currently have 10 staff members, working in their free time to moderate the chat rooms or search through applications for certain positions - several hundred for each of us sometimes. We have many people registering each day, and we don't have the time to go through each registration, check the ISP existed, reply with some sort of authorisation code and then let them connect. The other problem of course being the users - they simply can't be bothered to go through the registration process and wait for a reply e-mail when they could go to another site and chat straight away.
Hmm. Sorry RBS...
I agree that there needs to be a better force policing the net, but it is still a daunting task due to the amount of activity that they would have to track. Even with a single case as you suggested, checking logs for the internet activity of every friend a certain person had would take a substantial amount of time. As it happens, this particular friend I was thinking of is perfectly likely to be the one attempting the attack...
Finding people capable of keeping up with new techniques and combatting them is also nescessary, and I think there current generation being brought up with computers is much more capable of dealing with this than a current officer givena course in computing - hackers helping the police is a start. How many police could answer the question "What are you doing to combat people leeching using Shiva?"
Finally, with regards to forcing people to sign up using an address from their ISP, it would be possible to try, but totally impractical - we currently have 10 staff members, working in their free time to moderate the chat rooms or search through applications for certain positions - several hundred for each of us sometimes. We have many people registering each day, and we don't have the time to go through each registration, check the ISP existed, reply with some sort of authorisation code and then let them connect. The other problem of course being the users - they simply can't be bothered to go through the registration process and wait for a reply e-mail when they could go to another site and chat straight away.
Hmm. Sorry RBS...
Reaper[oV] wrote:
>Isn't
> there something about people being unable to destroy >their hard
> drives when they catch sight of the police coming as it's >destroying
> evidence, which can also lead to prosecution...
Something like that yes, physcial destruction of a hard drive doesnt guarantee no evidence can be recovered, the Americans military has testified to this fact during the spyplane landing in China - the crew took "desperate measures" to destroy critical date ( a shotgun bolt into the drives at point blank )yet this has not stopped the Chinese from attempting a recovery. As for wiping a HD then its a grey area, programs which render data unrecoverable are completely legal as they have legitimate uses such as erasing Credit Card data from your machine, personal info, business files e.t.c
>For example, I could ssh
> from my computer > a friend, then root this and "tidy
> up" some files so my login isn't recorded. From there, a
> connection to intrius in London, then vtfs in Holland, >and then run
> anything I wanted to do - the furthest that this could be >traced
> back would be to my friend's computer, as there would be >no evidence
> of a login on my part, thus leaving him responsible. One
> ex-friend..
Thats a perfectly good scenario, I'm saying there should be some kind of police force good enough to realise what can be done. in this case, they could tie up other sites your friend was on at the time, and would your friend be believable as the hacker ? A recovery program could be used to find traces of any programs needed. Its a wonderful irony that erasing programs can delete anything EXCEPT evidence of their own uninstall. Next they could look at your friends friends and see who has a PC to start with, then trace their internet activity through ISP logs ( All ISP's have to keep log files and by law must assist any law enforcement investigation )
>With regards to "physical"
> barriers in chat rooms, yes, we do ask people to >register, but it
> isn't compulasory - largely because it's a pointless >exercise,
> people just submit false details and/or register from a >spoofed IP.
If they dont have to register then theres no barriers ! Submitting false details is a problem which would require some ingenuity but could be helped by asking people to provide an email address that is from their own ISP and having them verify their membership. Anyone with a net connection needs an ISP and all ISP's now give emails addresses free. Its a lot harder to fake a membership to an ISP as they all require Caller Line ID to be on. By stating these facts during any registration process it would further discourage false information. Lastly, most spoofed IPs trace back to being a global Ip with no specific lookup point, so use a script similar to that on ripe.net to instanty check an IP, if its cloaked or a universal address or doesnt match the ISP a user says it should then they cant join. The technology is available to sort out the internet, someone somewhere just has to take some responsibility for it and stop passing the blame along.
>Isn't
> there something about people being unable to destroy >their hard
> drives when they catch sight of the police coming as it's >destroying
> evidence, which can also lead to prosecution...
Something like that yes, physcial destruction of a hard drive doesnt guarantee no evidence can be recovered, the Americans military has testified to this fact during the spyplane landing in China - the crew took "desperate measures" to destroy critical date ( a shotgun bolt into the drives at point blank )yet this has not stopped the Chinese from attempting a recovery. As for wiping a HD then its a grey area, programs which render data unrecoverable are completely legal as they have legitimate uses such as erasing Credit Card data from your machine, personal info, business files e.t.c
>For example, I could ssh
> from my computer > a friend, then root this and "tidy
> up" some files so my login isn't recorded. From there, a
> connection to intrius in London, then vtfs in Holland, >and then run
> anything I wanted to do - the furthest that this could be >traced
> back would be to my friend's computer, as there would be >no evidence
> of a login on my part, thus leaving him responsible. One
> ex-friend..
Thats a perfectly good scenario, I'm saying there should be some kind of police force good enough to realise what can be done. in this case, they could tie up other sites your friend was on at the time, and would your friend be believable as the hacker ? A recovery program could be used to find traces of any programs needed. Its a wonderful irony that erasing programs can delete anything EXCEPT evidence of their own uninstall. Next they could look at your friends friends and see who has a PC to start with, then trace their internet activity through ISP logs ( All ISP's have to keep log files and by law must assist any law enforcement investigation )
>With regards to "physical"
> barriers in chat rooms, yes, we do ask people to >register, but it
> isn't compulasory - largely because it's a pointless >exercise,
> people just submit false details and/or register from a >spoofed IP.
If they dont have to register then theres no barriers ! Submitting false details is a problem which would require some ingenuity but could be helped by asking people to provide an email address that is from their own ISP and having them verify their membership. Anyone with a net connection needs an ISP and all ISP's now give emails addresses free. Its a lot harder to fake a membership to an ISP as they all require Caller Line ID to be on. By stating these facts during any registration process it would further discourage false information. Lastly, most spoofed IPs trace back to being a global Ip with no specific lookup point, so use a script similar to that on ripe.net to instanty check an IP, if its cloaked or a universal address or doesnt match the ISP a user says it should then they cant join. The technology is available to sort out the internet, someone somewhere just has to take some responsibility for it and stop passing the blame along.
Ok, an hour is unrealistic, but months is still excessive. Isn't there something about people being unable to destroy their hard drives when they catch sight of the police coming as it's destroying evidence, which can also lead to prosecution...
It's true that many IP spoofing utilities can be bypassed, but doing this is pointless if there isn't a decent system to follow up the arrest with, something which applies to current technology and involves more than loss of equipment for a few months. Shells are less effective to go through, as the owners of the physical computers can trace the login - unless you root the box in the first place and delete any traces of your being there.
For example, I could ssh from my computer > a friend, then root this and "tidy up" some files so my login isn't recorded. From there, a connection to intrius in London, then vtfs in Holland, and then run anything I wanted to do - the furthest that this could be traced back would be to my friend's computer, as there would be no evidence of a login on my part, thus leaving him responsible. One ex-friend..
(Disclaimer: This is theory, use for educational purposes only, etc...I've never launched malicious attacks from someone else's computer)
With regards to "physical" barriers in chat rooms, yes, we do ask people to register, but it isn't compulasory - largely because it's a pointless exercise, people just submit false details and/or register from a spoofed IP.
It's true that many IP spoofing utilities can be bypassed, but doing this is pointless if there isn't a decent system to follow up the arrest with, something which applies to current technology and involves more than loss of equipment for a few months. Shells are less effective to go through, as the owners of the physical computers can trace the login - unless you root the box in the first place and delete any traces of your being there.
For example, I could ssh from my computer > a friend, then root this and "tidy up" some files so my login isn't recorded. From there, a connection to intrius in London, then vtfs in Holland, and then run anything I wanted to do - the furthest that this could be traced back would be to my friend's computer, as there would be no evidence of a login on my part, thus leaving him responsible. One ex-friend..
(Disclaimer: This is theory, use for educational purposes only, etc...I've never launched malicious attacks from someone else's computer)
With regards to "physical" barriers in chat rooms, yes, we do ask people to register, but it isn't compulasory - largely because it's a pointless exercise, people just submit false details and/or register from a spoofed IP.
I read it as well ! ( eyes okay as well )
Shouldn't operators of chat sites be a bit more self regualting ? Its okay saying they post rules e.t.c. but what physical barriers do they have i.e registration process and details needed to register.
Its true that an Ip can be hid, but law enforcement agencies have programs that can beat nearly all of these, how do you think they catch hackers ? ( Well actually they don't very often but its the point that counts ) Kevin Mitnick in the USA thought he was safe but the FBI traced him, to his ISP, then his home. With regards to reapers idea that a file search can only take an hour this is only partly true, a search for normal files or hidden/masked ones can take jsut an hour, but a search for deleted or erased files or ones from before a new OS installation or reinstall can take months to piece together. Everything you have ever done on your PC is recorded in files you yourself cannot access and every single byte of information, even those you sent to the recycle bin, is sitting on your hard drive in some form or another. Unless you use a program like evidence eliminator or norton erase then its all still there ! The only exception is unless you completely fill your hard drive, in which case windows won't boot so its a bit of a self killer huh ?
Shouldn't operators of chat sites be a bit more self regualting ? Its okay saying they post rules e.t.c. but what physical barriers do they have i.e registration process and details needed to register.
Its true that an Ip can be hid, but law enforcement agencies have programs that can beat nearly all of these, how do you think they catch hackers ? ( Well actually they don't very often but its the point that counts ) Kevin Mitnick in the USA thought he was safe but the FBI traced him, to his ISP, then his home. With regards to reapers idea that a file search can only take an hour this is only partly true, a search for normal files or hidden/masked ones can take jsut an hour, but a search for deleted or erased files or ones from before a new OS installation or reinstall can take months to piece together. Everything you have ever done on your PC is recorded in files you yourself cannot access and every single byte of information, even those you sent to the recycle bin, is sitting on your hard drive in some form or another. Unless you use a program like evidence eliminator or norton erase then its all still there ! The only exception is unless you completely fill your hard drive, in which case windows won't boot so its a bit of a self killer huh ?
I read it, Phil!
Wish I hadn't now, my eyes have gone perculier... Anyway, What Reaper said is true. You can't stop people engaging in private conversations and giving out various pieces of private information. If they do then that's there choice, but what no one seems to understand is that the Moderators and owners of the chat rooms can't stop that unless they actually catch them saying anything. Of ocurse they can check the logs (if they have them) but at the end of the day it's not their fault if little Sarah gives out her name and address. What parents have got to do is warn their kids, not shout at the Mods/owners.
Wish I hadn't now, my eyes have gone perculier... Anyway, What Reaper said is true. You can't stop people engaging in private conversations and giving out various pieces of private information. If they do then that's there choice, but what no one seems to understand is that the Moderators and owners of the chat rooms can't stop that unless they actually catch them saying anything. Of ocurse they can check the logs (if they have them) but at the end of the day it's not their fault if little Sarah gives out her name and address. What parents have got to do is warn their kids, not shout at the Mods/owners.
Heh, interesting, I seem to have this debate with someone or other at least once a week..
As some of you probably know from when the SR chat was trialled, I work part time (as a volunteer) helping to monitor chat rooms for a small UK site, CentralChat. I regularly find parents coming in, concerned that their children are on a site especially for kids, and thinking that it will be a prime target for paedophiles. I have to explain to them that we do all that we can to help keep children on the site safe, but there are limits to what we can do.
We do have users over the age of 16, but they tend to stay in their own rooms. If we are aware of someone who causes trouble, we keep an eye on them, and have been known to report people to their ISPs in the past to have their service cut. This is fine to a degree, but we can't stop people from engaging in private conversations and revealing their details. This is down to them to make sure that they act in a sensible and responsible way, not giving out any personal details or anything else that they're not comfortable with.
This is all made clear every time a user connects to the server - the Message of the Day appears on connect, and clearly states all of these rules, but we can't make people read this either, they can just scroll past. The MOTD outlines all server specific rules, and some general precautions too, but it's useless if people don't make an effort to read it. Our particular one reads (edited for relevance):
* Please do not use profanity or sexually explicit language on CentralChat.
* Please do not fight or engage in personal attacks.
* Please do not use racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious slurs.
* Please do not use a nickname/screen-name with any profanity, sexually explicit language, sexual innuendo, or racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
* Harassment / Sexual Harassment, Racism and any other type of harassment will not be tolerated on this server. If users are found harassing and/or threatening other users they will be removed from our server.
* Please do not talk about anything that would not be suitable for viewing by kids. This is a family-friendly network, and a lot of kids do chat here.
These are all intended to keep behaviour rational and the general mood friendly, but like I said, we can only stop people found breaking them. We have a page dedicated to parents and children who are uncomfortable with online chat sites, but in the end it's simple - if you aren't comfortable with using it, then don't. Similarly, if parents don't want their children to use them, don't allow them to, get a filter system.
Blaming the IRC servers themselves doesn't help anyone, we only act as a scapegoat for the paranoid, created by the media. We do what we can, but it's down to the users themselves to be careful with their details.
As a point, I'm only 14, and I've never felt intimidated at any time using the internet. I have met up with one person I spoke to online (the guy who runs CentralChat, came on here for a few days) for a footable match, and he was perfectly normal and not at all threatening (other may disagree - and he beat our team 22-3...), but you can't be sure - I had both parents with me watching the match anyway, as well as 12 other friends. I think the internet's a great tool and usually safe (consider the number of incidents with the sheer size of it), as long as people don't do anything that they're uncomfortable with, and report any problems to people who can do something about it - for example, on a chat server, report the user to a staff member, on a message board, speak to the admins.
Policing the internet can't be approached in the same way as other areas, due to the anonymous nature of it and the users. You find someone causing trouble, get their IP, and find that they're only using a shell on someone else's computer, so making it harder to trace them. Alternatively, reverse DNS techniques allowing you to spoof your IP during attacks on sites/IRC sessions also cover your tracks.
Anyone caught is then usually reported to the police, who deal with them through an archaic computer crime system. Technology is moving so quickly that there aren't laws to cover some offences - a friend of mine had his equipment confiscated by the police, and it took them months to return it after searching it for files, a process which should take less than an hour. this is by no means a one off either, a quick trawl through some message boards reveal similar experiences from others.
Problems from hackers and paedophiles are real, but exaggerated, and the truth is that with the current system, we have no good way of dealing with computer criminals. These are issues that need to be addressed as soon as possible, but at the current rate of progress, we may not see any major advances before Internet2 starts looming, with ways to tackle these problems being at the forefront of its development.
If you actually read that, thanks..
As some of you probably know from when the SR chat was trialled, I work part time (as a volunteer) helping to monitor chat rooms for a small UK site, CentralChat. I regularly find parents coming in, concerned that their children are on a site especially for kids, and thinking that it will be a prime target for paedophiles. I have to explain to them that we do all that we can to help keep children on the site safe, but there are limits to what we can do.
We do have users over the age of 16, but they tend to stay in their own rooms. If we are aware of someone who causes trouble, we keep an eye on them, and have been known to report people to their ISPs in the past to have their service cut. This is fine to a degree, but we can't stop people from engaging in private conversations and revealing their details. This is down to them to make sure that they act in a sensible and responsible way, not giving out any personal details or anything else that they're not comfortable with.
This is all made clear every time a user connects to the server - the Message of the Day appears on connect, and clearly states all of these rules, but we can't make people read this either, they can just scroll past. The MOTD outlines all server specific rules, and some general precautions too, but it's useless if people don't make an effort to read it. Our particular one reads (edited for relevance):
* Please do not use profanity or sexually explicit language on CentralChat.
* Please do not fight or engage in personal attacks.
* Please do not use racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious slurs.
* Please do not use a nickname/screen-name with any profanity, sexually explicit language, sexual innuendo, or racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
* Harassment / Sexual Harassment, Racism and any other type of harassment will not be tolerated on this server. If users are found harassing and/or threatening other users they will be removed from our server.
* Please do not talk about anything that would not be suitable for viewing by kids. This is a family-friendly network, and a lot of kids do chat here.
These are all intended to keep behaviour rational and the general mood friendly, but like I said, we can only stop people found breaking them. We have a page dedicated to parents and children who are uncomfortable with online chat sites, but in the end it's simple - if you aren't comfortable with using it, then don't. Similarly, if parents don't want their children to use them, don't allow them to, get a filter system.
Blaming the IRC servers themselves doesn't help anyone, we only act as a scapegoat for the paranoid, created by the media. We do what we can, but it's down to the users themselves to be careful with their details.
As a point, I'm only 14, and I've never felt intimidated at any time using the internet. I have met up with one person I spoke to online (the guy who runs CentralChat, came on here for a few days) for a footable match, and he was perfectly normal and not at all threatening (other may disagree - and he beat our team 22-3...), but you can't be sure - I had both parents with me watching the match anyway, as well as 12 other friends. I think the internet's a great tool and usually safe (consider the number of incidents with the sheer size of it), as long as people don't do anything that they're uncomfortable with, and report any problems to people who can do something about it - for example, on a chat server, report the user to a staff member, on a message board, speak to the admins.
Policing the internet can't be approached in the same way as other areas, due to the anonymous nature of it and the users. You find someone causing trouble, get their IP, and find that they're only using a shell on someone else's computer, so making it harder to trace them. Alternatively, reverse DNS techniques allowing you to spoof your IP during attacks on sites/IRC sessions also cover your tracks.
Anyone caught is then usually reported to the police, who deal with them through an archaic computer crime system. Technology is moving so quickly that there aren't laws to cover some offences - a friend of mine had his equipment confiscated by the police, and it took them months to return it after searching it for files, a process which should take less than an hour. this is by no means a one off either, a quick trawl through some message boards reveal similar experiences from others.
Problems from hackers and paedophiles are real, but exaggerated, and the truth is that with the current system, we have no good way of dealing with computer criminals. These are issues that need to be addressed as soon as possible, but at the current rate of progress, we may not see any major advances before Internet2 starts looming, with ways to tackle these problems being at the forefront of its development.
If you actually read that, thanks..
goatboy sits back with interest, because for once, he isn't in the middle of a raging debate.
This is a good read, no sarcasm here, I'm enjoying this.
This is a good read, no sarcasm here, I'm enjoying this.
Armitage Shanks wrote:
>Knives are often used in violent attacks, though nobody
> would ever think of abnning them, or only allowing people >to used
> blunt knives...
You cannot buy a knife in a shop unless you're over 16 ( or is it 18 ? I forget ) 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.
>How much of a nanny state doyou think
> we should have?
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
>What level should the individual be allowed to
> do as he/she chooses, and where should the powers that be >choose to
> curb their influences?
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.
>Its all still there without the
> internet. Just a lot more hidden, and a lot harder to >see... I ould
> rather know the state of the people in my country, than >pretend that
> what I cant see isnt happening...
Without the internet a lot of it wouldn't be there, whats the number one industry on the web ? Sex. This isn't the place to get into a long discussion about that but a fair majority of these sites operate as close to the law as they can and many break the law. The internet has turned a small time industry into a global one with links to organised crime and more. What's the number one dvd on SR ? Erotic Witch project, now how many people buy adult DVDs in a normal shop ? Enough to have sales beat those of regular films ? I don't think so, yet because the internet offer anonymity people will buy it from here. My point here isn't that the DVD shouldnt be sold, its that the demand is there on the internet for that kind of material and that is easier to obtain it via the internet. Has the internet let us see the state of our country, or affected it ? Sure, before the internet was widespread there was credit card fraud, abuse etc, but on this wide a scale ?
>I dont think global policing would work, its hard
> enough to get the countires of Europe to agree to >anything... let
> alone the contires of the entire planet...
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.
>The situation is the same on the Internet... its
> just easier to evade a countrys law on the net... you can >do
> somethin, that may be considered a crime in the UK, but >since its on
> a machine in the US noone cando anything about it...
No I don't think it is. This very minute there are illegal images, information, hacking attempts, mp3's. copied games, racist sites, chat room stalkers, abusive emails, threats, all on servers worldwide and no one is doing a thing about it. Occasionally, as in the guy i mentioned before, someone is caught, but the majority are not. 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".
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. 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.
I'd like to say im not flaming here, its just that I want to put my point across about the internet. If I've offended anyone wiht my replies then I apologise becuase I didnt mean to okay ? :)
>Knives are often used in violent attacks, though nobody
> would ever think of abnning them, or only allowing people >to used
> blunt knives...
You cannot buy a knife in a shop unless you're over 16 ( or is it 18 ? I forget ) 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.
>How much of a nanny state doyou think
> we should have?
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
>What level should the individual be allowed to
> do as he/she chooses, and where should the powers that be >choose to
> curb their influences?
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.
>Its all still there without the
> internet. Just a lot more hidden, and a lot harder to >see... I ould
> rather know the state of the people in my country, than >pretend that
> what I cant see isnt happening...
Without the internet a lot of it wouldn't be there, whats the number one industry on the web ? Sex. This isn't the place to get into a long discussion about that but a fair majority of these sites operate as close to the law as they can and many break the law. The internet has turned a small time industry into a global one with links to organised crime and more. What's the number one dvd on SR ? Erotic Witch project, now how many people buy adult DVDs in a normal shop ? Enough to have sales beat those of regular films ? I don't think so, yet because the internet offer anonymity people will buy it from here. My point here isn't that the DVD shouldnt be sold, its that the demand is there on the internet for that kind of material and that is easier to obtain it via the internet. Has the internet let us see the state of our country, or affected it ? Sure, before the internet was widespread there was credit card fraud, abuse etc, but on this wide a scale ?
>I dont think global policing would work, its hard
> enough to get the countires of Europe to agree to >anything... let
> alone the contires of the entire planet...
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.
>The situation is the same on the Internet... its
> just easier to evade a countrys law on the net... you can >do
> somethin, that may be considered a crime in the UK, but >since its on
> a machine in the US noone cando anything about it...
No I don't think it is. This very minute there are illegal images, information, hacking attempts, mp3's. copied games, racist sites, chat room stalkers, abusive emails, threats, all on servers worldwide and no one is doing a thing about it. Occasionally, as in the guy i mentioned before, someone is caught, but the majority are not. 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".
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. 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.
I'd like to say im not flaming here, its just that I want to put my point across about the internet. If I've offended anyone wiht my replies then I apologise becuase I didnt mean to okay ? :)
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
Because if you create something with
> the potential for harm then there should be a way to stop
> it.
Dont most things have the potential for harm?
Knives are often used in violent attacks, though nobody would ever think of abnning them, or only allowing people to used blunt knives...
Current laws applying to what can be shown and cannot are
> blatantly disregarded. There's so much of a hurry to see what the
> limits of what can be done on the internet are that very few people
> are asking if it should be done.
What happens to a country with
> no laws ? Chaos, and the same is happening to the internet.
How much of a nanny state doyou think we should have?
What level should the individual be allowed to do as he/she chooses, and where should the powers that be choose to curb their influences?
You
> want a mirror into the very worst parts of being human ? Then the
> internet is the perfect place to see that ! Exploitation, abuse,
> racism, fear, hate ; its all there. Whilst I know and realise
> anything can be used for bad purposes, e.g. DVD, VHS, television,
> magazines, radio , all these are policed and people breaking the law
> are accountable and traceable. None of these media types can compare
> to the internet because they are not as widespread or as easy to
> obtain.
Its all still there without the internet. Just a lot more hidden, and a lot harder to see... I ould rather know the state of the people in my country, than pretend that what I cant see isnt happening...
What do I think it would take to change this ? A
> policing force with global reach and its own courts where the
> judges/jury understands the technology being used.
I dont think global policing would work, its hard enough to get the countires of Europe to agree to anything... let alone the contires of the entire planet...
If someone
> commits a real world crime then , within reason, they will be hunted
> down where-ever they go and I think its about time the same message
> was sent to anyone breaking the law on the internet in any way, no
> matter their age or their reasons. The law is the law !
The situation is the same on the Internet... its just easier to evade a countrys law on the net... you can do somethin, that may be considered a crime in the UK, but since its on a machine in the US noone cando anything about it...
Because if you create something with
> the potential for harm then there should be a way to stop
> it.
Dont most things have the potential for harm?
Knives are often used in violent attacks, though nobody would ever think of abnning them, or only allowing people to used blunt knives...
Current laws applying to what can be shown and cannot are
> blatantly disregarded. There's so much of a hurry to see what the
> limits of what can be done on the internet are that very few people
> are asking if it should be done.
What happens to a country with
> no laws ? Chaos, and the same is happening to the internet.
How much of a nanny state doyou think we should have?
What level should the individual be allowed to do as he/she chooses, and where should the powers that be choose to curb their influences?
You
> want a mirror into the very worst parts of being human ? Then the
> internet is the perfect place to see that ! Exploitation, abuse,
> racism, fear, hate ; its all there. Whilst I know and realise
> anything can be used for bad purposes, e.g. DVD, VHS, television,
> magazines, radio , all these are policed and people breaking the law
> are accountable and traceable. None of these media types can compare
> to the internet because they are not as widespread or as easy to
> obtain.
Its all still there without the internet. Just a lot more hidden, and a lot harder to see... I ould rather know the state of the people in my country, than pretend that what I cant see isnt happening...
What do I think it would take to change this ? A
> policing force with global reach and its own courts where the
> judges/jury understands the technology being used.
I dont think global policing would work, its hard enough to get the countires of Europe to agree to anything... let alone the contires of the entire planet...
If someone
> commits a real world crime then , within reason, they will be hunted
> down where-ever they go and I think its about time the same message
> was sent to anyone breaking the law on the internet in any way, no
> matter their age or their reasons. The law is the law !
The situation is the same on the Internet... its just easier to evade a countrys law on the net... you can do somethin, that may be considered a crime in the UK, but since its on a machine in the US noone cando anything about it...
Armitage Shanks wrote
>I'm not asking in an attempt
> to flame, because I am genuinly curious, but, why do you >think this
> is a bad thing?
Because if you create something with the potential for harm then there should be a way to stop it.
Current laws applying to what can be shown and cannot are blatantly disregarded. There's so much of a hurry to see what the limits of what can be done on the internet are that very few people are asking if it should be done.
What happens to a country with no laws ? Chaos, and the same is happening to the internet.
You want a mirror into the very worst parts of being human ? Then the internet is the perfect place to see that ! Exploitation, abuse, racism, fear, hate ; its all there. Whilst I know and realise anything can be used for bad purposes, e.g. DVD, VHS, television, magazines, radio , all these are policed and people breaking the law are accountable and traceable. None of these media types can compare to the internet because they are not as widespread or as easy to obtain.
What do I think it would take to change this ? A policing force with global reach and its own courts where the judges/jury understands the technology being used.
If someone commits a real world crime then , within reason, they will be hunted down where-ever they go and I think its about time the same message was sent to anyone breaking the law on the internet in any way, no matter their age or their reasons. The law is the law !
>I'm not asking in an attempt
> to flame, because I am genuinly curious, but, why do you >think this
> is a bad thing?
Because if you create something with the potential for harm then there should be a way to stop it.
Current laws applying to what can be shown and cannot are blatantly disregarded. There's so much of a hurry to see what the limits of what can be done on the internet are that very few people are asking if it should be done.
What happens to a country with no laws ? Chaos, and the same is happening to the internet.
You want a mirror into the very worst parts of being human ? Then the internet is the perfect place to see that ! Exploitation, abuse, racism, fear, hate ; its all there. Whilst I know and realise anything can be used for bad purposes, e.g. DVD, VHS, television, magazines, radio , all these are policed and people breaking the law are accountable and traceable. None of these media types can compare to the internet because they are not as widespread or as easy to obtain.
What do I think it would take to change this ? A policing force with global reach and its own courts where the judges/jury understands the technology being used.
If someone commits a real world crime then , within reason, they will be hunted down where-ever they go and I think its about time the same message was sent to anyone breaking the law on the internet in any way, no matter their age or their reasons. The law is the law !
Page: