This video explains how the government will gain access to your hard drive with invasive software to see if illegal materials reside on it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yPmtQDWZ1s[/youtube]
When enough people approve of something, say even just 10%, it ought to be legal just on the principle that the other 90 have no right to tell these people what to do.
Drugs
Abortion
Prostitution
Copyright infringement
Gambling
etc.
Legalize. And if you don’t have that power directly, break the laws to declare yourself in opposition to them. Victimless crime is an oxymoron.
The point of the video was the government using invasive means to access a person’s hard drive without just cause. Just another assumed freedom we thought we had being usurped by government control.
Things like this begin in a gradual surreptitious manner. Having the major media as an ally to let information like this go unnoticed is what the present admistration is counting on in the U S.
For copyright infringement?
Jesus F$#^$%&^%# Christ.
I don’t copyright infringe upon anything, but I still think it is ridiculous to be randomly searching computers so you can charge people with copyright infringement.
If you’re going to randomly search computers it needs to be for child pornography and the penalty for any child pornography found should be capital punishment.
Far be it from the government to use this awesome software to access someone’s hard drive for something good, though…
Next up, copy & paste key-stroking will be a violation of copyright laws, and then, being literate at all. :D/
Anything disruptive to the system must be annihilated! 
Don’t listen to Pavs, he’d kill the universe if he could. It’s been proven to break laws all the time. GUILTY!!
Lemme guess, you also take the strict stance that 18 is the definition of a ‘child’. So, then, a 17 year old, who has been sexually mature for five years, is filmed by her boyfriend. We should kill him? Of course there is stuff out there which is abusive and disgusting, but this is the problem with law - strict definitions ensure that the innocent are punished. In your world, that punishment would be death. Shame on you.
We (edit - the journalists) have also made the leap of an assumption that copyright would be the purpose of this unwarranted(pun!) incursion into our personal property. Given the secrecy, we have no reason to believe it would not, in fact, be child pornography that is their goal. I find it more likely they would use it to investigate suspected terrorists, maybe look for the ledgers of drug and weapon dealers. Copyright is very unlikely.
Good to make this kind of thing as public as possible. Our privacy and the state’s ability to track and control us has been increasing steadily regardless of which party sits in the big house.
The definition of a child is whatever the State or country in question says that the definition of a child is. Now, if the boyfriend of this seventeen year old is under the age of eighteen, to the best of my knowledge, no crime has been committed as in my State, Ohio, sixteen is the legal age of sexual consent.
Now, if the individual in question that takes these photos is under 18, to the best of my knowledge, no crime has been committed and even if one had, he would be tried as a minor.
In the event that the individual was over 18, although the victim has attained the age of legal sexual consent, the individual would still be guilty of possession of child pornography and as such would be sentenced to death.
You can say shame on me all you want, but the individual in question has either attained the age of eighteen, or the individual has not, it is an easy law not to break.
Good of you to post this.
Serendipity is usually the bloodhound that sniffs out these videos I find. I don’t intentionally go looking for them, but some I do run into scream out to be posted.
The thing that could be profoundly inherent about the software is it will be so covert that it will run clandestnely in the background so that detection won’t even be an issue.
What the future holds in store for folks will put ‘Animal Farm’ to shame.
You’ve set up a rubric by which the same picture of the same 17 year old would be punished rather based on the age of the person who possesses it.
This is not ethics.
Nor logic.
I must ask - Do you actually consider yourself a philosopher? You sound more like a sociopath. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but I would say that in the statements you make, you are very much exclusively one, not the other. Guess which.
Insults, insults, insults. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not read the other thread prior to posting this, based on that I will continue to ATTEMPT a reasonable conversation with you.
As I have already mentioned, someone under the age of eighteen possessing the picture of the seventeen year old would not be a crime at all in my book.
Now, look, if you want to write the law and have it say that someone that is twenty, twenty-one years old can possess a picture of someone that is of the legal age of consent, that doesn’t concern me. The question here is, where do you draw the line? The line is going to be arbitrary one way or another, so you have to draw it somewhere. I like 18, maybe you like 22, it is not important enough to worry me to a great extent, if you want to know the truth.
So, first of all, I think that you make children under the age of sixteen completely off-limits for anyone that is eighteen or older, period. Now, when you have children that are sixteen or seventeen, then I have no personal problem with it being maybe twenty, maybe even twenty-one…
So, there you go, if you’re eighteen or older and have sex with someone under sixteen or possess pronography of such, I recommend the death penalty.
If you’re twenty-two or older, then the same applies for anyone under the age of eighteen.
Like I said, you have to set that line somewhere, so those are the terms that I am agreeable to, if you have anything to add, contribute, or counter with feel free to do so without insults if it would not be too much of a problem.
I did post this before reading the other thread, but in accordance with what I wrote in the other thread (the parenthetical edit regarding ad hominem), I will point out again that this is more observation than insult. I personally am of the opinion that tossing around death penalties for any crime, whether by a judge or a person on a message board, is sociopathic. It belies a distorted sense of right and wrong, of justice, and of one’s place in the community. It also belies a disturbing assumption of moral authority.
mmkay, so let’s say two seventeen year olds make a video. The guy tosses it in a closet and forgets about it. Then he turns 18. Somehow he is caught with it. Though it was legal when he created the video, and hasn’t touched it since, it was still ‘in his possession.’ Off With His Head!!
I still have a picture of a girl I dated when I was 16. Funny enough, it is in a box somewhere in my grandmother’s attic, two states away. Come and get me.
So you admit that the law is arbitrary but maintain the death penalty would not be, in application to the law? How do you reconcile this? And you’re talking about killing people over it in one breath then saying it’s not important enough to worry about in the next. How do you reconcile this?
Why 16? Sexual maturity occurs at 12. Though major pioneers such as Freud, Kinsey and (I’ll go on a limb) Flynt, have done a great deal to spark in us some sexual consciousness, we still live in a climate of sexual repression so ubiquitous we don’t even recognize it being there. It’s just ‘the way things are’. Now, I didn’t grow up suffering any less conditioning than anyone else. D.A.R.E. worked on me, big time. I was terrified of foreign substance until I was maybe 18, when I started to see it and its effects on those around me more frequently. I still did not touch a thing until a year later; I had no alcohol or drug of any kind until I was 19. Eight years later it would be simpler to tell you what I haven’t tried. Look at me. I’m completely maladjusted, and I can barely put a sentence together.
I have since negated my conditioning on this issue. I now recognize that everything in the universe is a foreign substance, including every molecule in my body, which once was not a part of ‘me.’ But then, when your definition of a thing has come to include the whole of all creation, it tends to become indistinguishable from its opposite. No ‘substance’ is foreign, there is nothing that is not already a part of me. The self/environment interface is seamless, contrary to the conditioning which assures us otherwise. You are inextricable from nature. They Who Make Laws don’t much appreciate this kind of reasoning or knowledge. It tends to make their laws look silly.
But I digress. My point is, there is much of cultural programming that remains in me. I agree completely with the approximate age of 16 being the barest minimum appropriate for adult sexual relations, including pornography (though for me the number itself would be less important than a feeling of maturity). As a matter of personal taste I am rarely attracted to anyone under 20, but I have never felt particular disdain for those who prefer their partners to be younger. Partner is an important term here. I have always felt 16 to be about right because cultural conditioning convinced me that was the correct thing.
It is interesting to note that this is a self-enforcing cultural program. The ‘children’ themselves do not by and large consider themselves ready at twelve, but it’s more than possible that this a result of that very same program. That there is such widespread promiscuity at younger ages in spite of the program, and that this behavior is not particularly selected against in evolutionary terms, is telling.
Then again, it should never be assumed that a moral intuition is wrong just because it is a conditioned response. Conditioning runs deep, into all our intuition and instinct. Our genes themselves can be thought of as conditioned responses to evolutionary pressures.
I have not yet examined this issue deeply enough to satisfy my definition of ‘belief’. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Every single instinct or reaction one ever has should be critically examined. You never know when you might stumble upon Pavlovian Model 25,272. 
As our physical and mental maturity progresses continually rather than in increments, I recommend instead graphing the relative ages you have proposed. In this way, we would have a day-to-day picture of precisely how mature, in a relative sense, the two participants are. This would get pretty tricky in an orgy, but the defense could probably hire a mathematician consultant to get at least one defendant off the hook. The other would die though.
And damned if he wouldn’t deserve it.
The line is in our hearts, and in the heart of the community. Aside from wishing to reiterate that even when the line is crossed, the death penalty is a ridiculous perversion of ethics and justice, I have something else to add.
I think we should look to our ancestors for a clue. We have to look back to the last sane moment we ever knew, and with an eye for Pavlovian Models that would disguise themselves as being ‘just the way things are’ or ‘natural to the human condition’. Before law was taboo. Taboo evolves. It is contextual. It involves the community as a whole, not a jury of 12 (or 24, or any number). It does recommend particular punishments for particular crimes, but every situation is different. When taboo shifts, cultural identity shifts with it. The community becomes the law(taboo) as it chooses its course with every decision it makes, rather than practicing the rote and unthinking repetition of habit. This is much the same as the moral development of an individual; as one grows older, their sense of right and wrong becomes more sophisticated. Rather than ossifying, as is seen with codified law, taboo burgeons in greyscale. This is something of a path to enlightenment, but for a collective psyche, a more expansive consciousness.
It is an unfortunate misconception that ‘anarchy’ is synonymous with chaos. The human being is remarkably well suited to forming stable, well intentioned, cooperative dynamics in groups, even large ones, without any prior guidelines. Rules come out of their interactions, in such scenarios, rather than vice versa.
the point of the OP is that our rights are going down the toilet. it doesnt matter what sorts of content you have on your computer, sex/copywrite/infringment etc, government has no right under 4th amendment to search this property unless they have a probable cause. just because some courts have determined that the 4th does not apply to data storage devices, doesnt make them right. it makes them wrong, because property is property, and copyright laws demonstrate that intellectual property is still property, and needs to be afforded 4th amendment protection.
blind and broad searches just to “see whats there” are blatantly illegal. that obama signed this into law would only surprise the idiots who actually believed his rhetoric about how “great” he thinks america is-- he is out to destroy this country, and hes going to get his wish. so are all of his worshipful followers.
1984 isnt coming, its already here; we just dont realise it yet. but its here, because its already too late to do anything to stop it. merely just need to wait for the inevitable few dominos left standing to fall over, as they will, as they must.
as for the “18” years old thing, yes of course that is a subjective and arbitrary government rule that bears no resemblance to reality. there is no magical change between 17 years and 364 days old, and 18 years old. no one believes this, at least i sure hope not. government needs to set an arbitrary line somewhere, and so it chooses 18 for adulthood. doesnt make it right, its just necessary. but on the other end, interpreting this line as absolute or as “when youre with a 17 year old you get killed or go to prison forever” and “if youre with an 18 year old its fine” is absolutely absurd. only an idiot would make this claim, that a subjective law divorced completely from reality be interpreted absolutely and without any need for context or limitation.
it always depends on the situation. girls over 18 get taken advantage of all the time too, even when they “consent”, because plenty of adults are still incapable of making their own choices. we need to realise the age line for aduldhood is both practically necessary as well as arbitrary, and work this understanding into the law so that legal statements regarding “how old your b/f or g/f is” and whether or not relations between them constitute statutory issues or abuse/assault depend on context and on a reasonable evidence of proof and justification, not just a blind overall statement that is completely separate from reality itself.
and its true, we do mature far earlier than 18. personally, i believe that the line for adulthood should be more like 15 years old.
I agree.
Part of what we’re missing is a rite of passage ritual. This is important for the collective conscious, but we dropped that tradition forever ago.
Rites of passage are important both for the individual (“You are hereby regarded as responsible for your own choices”) and the community (“we recognize this individual to be, like the rest of us, responsible for their own choices.”)
It would be concomitant with sexual rights, voting rights, drug/alcohol rights, and so on.
I propose choosing a year (perhaps with the aid of the opinions of developmental psychology) and ‘graduating’ our children into adulthood in public ceremony at the end of that year of schooling. That the individuals are all slightly different ages is irrelevant.
Of course, this would also require changing the educational system to be focused more in preparation for adulthood, for good decision making, for personal responsibility and moral rectitude. Two generations of this and law would be unnecessary and irrelevant.
Nothing about this, to me, has anything to do with somne kind of moral authority. If you take a person with the capacity to molest children and that person gets arrested, I don’t want the person ever to be out of jail where they can do it again, sex offender list or not.
The obvious answer to this would be to recommend life imprisonment, but I do not think that we should do that because the low-life that commits such a crime is not worth the expense. I can probably find it on-line if you want, but I read in the local paper that the average cost to house a single inmate at one of our local prisons is $64-and some change per day. Let’s call it $65/day. Right there you’re talking about $1,950/month in a thirty-day month and $23,725/year.
As I am sure you are aware, there are decent people out there in the world that have never commited (or at least been convicted of, though many have not committed) a single crime that make less than this amount per year. I’m talking people that work full-time here. With the federal minimum wage at $6.85/hour, a person could unfailingly work 40 hours per week fifty-two weeks a year and that person would make $14,250/year. You’re talking that this honest guy is only worth 60.1% of what it takes to sustain the existence of a child molester? I don’t think so.
I think I might have said something already relating to anyone of the legal age of consent (16, in my example) being open game for anyone twenty-one or under.
If it is a nude picture I would strongly recommend you throw it away. Especially given your (admitted) affinity for other illegal endeavors.
Look, when I’m talking about murdering the pedophiles, I’m talking about actual people that prey on children. I’m not so much inclined to believe that the majority of twenty year olds that have sexual relations with sixteen year olds are preying on them. I think that the majority of thirty year olds that are having sexual relations with a sixteen year old are preying on them. The point I’m making is that the line has to be set somewhere, so we can make it twenty-two, we can make it eighteen, whatever, it’s going to be arbitrary one way or another because it has to be.
Because we simply don’t have the time or resources to waste on looking at every individual situation and saying, “Oh, yeah, this twenty year-old was definitely preying on this sixteen year old, but this other wasn’t because…” A crime either happened or it didn’t, you’ll either make it a crime or you won’t, but we don’t have months of time to go into the history of every single circumstance.
So, you set an arbitrary line and keep it simple. The problem with many laws is how complicated they are and how much wiggle-room there is anyway.
Bullshit, and even if that were true from a purely biological standpoint, it is not true from a standpoint of mentality.
Sixteen is pretty much cool with me.
DEATH for anyone that engages in sexual relations (willing or not) that is eighteen or older with someone that is fifteen or younger, I can live with that.
I can agree with that, but you know, the kids will experiment. Something like a fifteen year-old experimenting with a thirteen year-old, or two twelve year-olds, whatever, that’s natural. But, when you have an adult enter the picture, all you have is a person who is taking advantage of this experimental stage of development.
LOL, Nice.
The other Pavlovian Models have not all numbered themselves yet because they are simply unaware of their conditioning, I assure you.
I like the idea if it ends up being actually workable.
For the time being, I think that if anyone eighteen or older does anthing involving someone under sixteen, it would work. It is such a tremendously easy law not to break.
Good stuff, I have no fundamental disagreements whatsoever with the above quote.
You should check out the Chamber of Debate thread for ILP v. ILO Debate 1. It was archy (ILP) vs anarchy (ILO), archy won, but it was damned close.