Surfing the web and Child pornography

[Stan]

Would you object to your online surfing habits being given to the U.S. government if it helped combat child pornography?

[Stan]

Please limit the discussion to the topic, not about the victims,

I was glad to see that some of the criminal charges laid against those who financially support this. An everburning Hell would not be good enough for what they deserve.

[Dr. Shane]

I think there are better ways to combat it than an invasion of personal privacy of law abiding citizens. I would like to see all porno sites be mandated to have an .xxx address and international treaties to enforce that thoughout the world. I think that would make it much easier for search engines and filters to protect us from such filth. Maybe I am wondering off topic. But if all porno was consolitdated to such addresses, wouldn't it also make it easier for law enforcement to find the child porn sites too?

[Bravus]

I think it would be possible to filter for content on the web (there are very good algorithms already for detecting flesh in images), and only if child porn is detected, then track it back to an IP address. That's different from making all of everyone's surfing accessible to the government in terms of a log of sites visisted. I don't trust any government that was sitting on a database like the latter not to seel it to commercial interests for ad targeting purposes.

[Derrell M]

I believe the government request for the Google databases was about children being able to access porn rather than being about child porn. If they want to put a stop to gratuitous distribution of pornographic content, they'll have to outlaw email. It seems like every other junk email pertains to something below the belt. Before my kids check their email, I check it for the purpose of weeding out that sort of stuff. Also, there is no private surfing in my house. The computer stays in the living room.

I agree with Bravus. If there are ways of tracking the sources of child porn other than unchecked government access to all of everybody's web activities, those methods should be pursued.

[cricket]

What difference does it make if the government tracks everything we do? We're supposed to be doing nothing illegal, sinful or embarassing. So, what of it?

[Dr. Shane]

I was falsely arrested and it cost me about $3,000 when it was all said and done. The charges were dropped after over a year of court dates. I learned that a person doesn't have to do break the law to get into trouble.

[Bravus]

Cricket - see my point above. If we trusted governments to only use what they discover to uphold the law, it'd be one thing, but there are already instances of governments selling data to corporations for profit.

[olger]

Right on, Shane.

olger

[cricket]

I understand that the government is fallible. Even so, I'd rather that Shane (or my husband, or myself) be falsely accused than my son be exposed on a Child Porn site (for doing something as innocent as wearing a bathing suit at the pool).

[Nicodema]

I do not surf porn, child or otherwise, so I fail to see how monitoring my activities would help the government do anything in this department. Citizens are not criminals. Where I go on the internet is nobody's business but mine. That doesn't mean I have anything to hide. I don't. It means just what it says: it is nobody's business but mine.

As Shane said:

Quote:

---

I think there are better ways to combat it than an invasion of personal privacy of law abiding citizens.

---

End of story.

[cricket]

Likewise, it is true: if a person wants to view child pornography, it's nis/her business and no one else's.

[Nicodema]

Actually, that is NOT true. Privacy is the indisputable right of the law-abiding citizen. It is not the right of those who would violate the rights of others. When you choose to commit a crime against other citizens, you forfeit your rights as a citizen, among those, the right to privacy and the right to move about freely as a member of society. That's what prison is about -- taking those two fundamental rights away.

When you commit a crime against another person it is no longer "nobody's business" but your own. Commission of a crime forfeits those rights.

In general I would agree with you if we were speaking of a "victimless" crime -- e.g., smoking marijuana in your living room and staying there while stoned (NOTE: e.g., NOT endangering other lives by driving a car and/or NOT selling or distributing it, thus involving others in its use). However, child pornography is NOT a "victimless" crime.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Stan Jensen said:

Would you object to your online surfing habits being given to the U.S. government if it helped combat child pornography?

---

Stan, I believe I might have voted incorrectly in this poll due to your wording above. You first ask "would you support this?" and then you ask "would you OBJECT". I answered "YES" meaning I would OBJECT ... NOT meaning I would support. I'm still confused as to whether the "yes" means support or object and whether the "no", consequently, means "NO, I would NOT object (therefore, I would support)" or "NO, I would not support (therefore I object)." I'm also wondering if the vague wording might have confused anyone else?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Friend said:

It seems like every other junk email pertains to something below the belt.

---

I never get any email like that. I was a little puzzled as to why the difference, until I found out about 'spies,' which I understand marketing companies put on the internet to somehow attach to one's 'cookies' to identify areas of interest. (Maybe that is way off base, but such I have heard.) I simply do not read or peruse news stories or other info on the internet, which might be considered as having sexual content--nor do I have any interest in them. I concluded that may be the reason which I don't get besieged with such junk mail. But, who knows?

David Koot

[Nan]

As far as I know, most of the unwanted/pornographic junk mail comes to the free accounts - I get a lot in my Hotmail account, less in Yahoo and Lycos - and never in my ISP account. If David is only using an ISP account, maybe that is why he is not seeing it - or else his security levels are set very high. I still peruse (senders of) the junk mail as sometimes there is wanted mail from a new address.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Privacy is the indisputable right of the law-abiding citizen.

---

I do not agree that blanket privacy is a right. However the US Constitution protects its citizens from seaches and seizures without warrents. A judge stands between the executive and legislative branches and the people. These branches must convince a judge of probable cause before the person loses his or her right to privacy.

[Bravus]

I think, like Nico, that I may have voted opposite to what I meant to due to the contrast between the posted question and the poll question.

[Nicodema]

Yeah, I voted at work, now at home it says:

Quote:

---

Would you object to your online surfing habits being given to the U.S. government if it helped combat child pornography?

Would you support this?

You may choose only one

YES!!!!!!!!

NO!!!!!!!!

---

and I'm STILL not sure which way I should answer to be my REAL answer. LOL

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

David Koot said:

I never get any email like that ... I simply do not read or peruse news stories or other info on the internet, which might be considered as having sexual content--nor do I have any interest in them. I concluded that may be the reason which I don't get besieged with such junk mail. But, who knows?

---

Spyware might be a reason in some cases, but I don't peruse those kinds of things on the 'net either, yet I still get spam about Viagra, Cialas, and (*ahem*) ways of getting "enlargements" for a certain part of the anatomy we females do not even possess.

Of course I also get spam for Rolex knock-offs and stock tips, and I don't surf those kinds of sites either. So it's anyone's guess ...

[olger]

I object to Government intrusion in general. It is already too much, too far, too fast.

gcw

[Naomi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Nicodema said:

Yeah, I voted at work, now at home it says:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Would you object to your online surfing habits being given to the U.S. government if it helped combat child pornography?

Would you support this?

You may choose only one

YES!!!!!!!!

NO!!!!!!!!

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

and I'm STILL not sure which way I should answer to be my REAL answer. LOL

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I'm also confused. I agree with Shane, there has to be a better way.

I object to giving away any personal freedons (legal activities) in the name of national security, safety, etc. It really doesn't stop the actions.

Even if this law did happen, those who choose pornography will find another method of feeding their sick, evil habits.

Naomi

[Gregory Matthews]

Let me share a true story, in two parts:

Part I:

I work for the Federal government (USA) and I have access to the Internet through a Federal system. Becaus we are a governmental agency, and individual patient records are a part of our system, My Internet access as what are probably the best protections agains spam, spyware, pornographic material, and all kinds of other stuff.

All incoming and outgoing Internet access goes through one of several national gateways. My Internet access is not local. This system is protected by both hardware, and software. It is protected at the national gateways, and locally. There are several steps in this process.

When this system was first put in place, I lost my access to a number of religious sites that I as a chaplain visit. I complained to our national chaplain HQ, and they blew me off, and informed me that I likely had a local problem. But over the next 24 hours, other chaplians in our sysem registered the same complaints. The result was that the software had to be re-written to allow us chaplains to access religious websites. On a rare occasion I still am prevented from visiting such. But, this is so rare that I live with it.

Folks, this is what can happen when the government gets involved.

Part II:

The modern, up to date system referenced above, replaced a stone-age system, with no ability to display graphics, and no real safeguards against anything. This same system still exists in principle, and is used in my facility to communicate with others in this same building. Access to the Web, and to peple elsewhere is done now by the modern system mentioned above.

Somehow, my address for this sone-age system got to some sender of spam. To the very day, I recieve on this ancient system pornographic materials, and other such spam.

As a chaplain, I want it known that I do not solicit such material, and I am not responsible for recieving such. I have regularly complained in public meetings about this material that comes to me in this old system. At first no one beleived me. It appears that I am the only one in this facility that will admit to getting it in this ancient system.

After people became convinced that I do recieve it--I sent them a copy, which is to explicit for me to cite here. My problem was raised on the national level. The response: We are sorry. The old system is set up in a manner that we are unable to prevent you recieving it.

My point here is that the stuff comes to one and all. I maay recieve it because my e-mail address was discovered in someone elses address book. It may not be because of some website I visied.

Further it may be an accident. When my son was younger, we did not allow him individual access to the Internet. If he wanted Internet access, he cam to me, and I directly superviesed it.

I was helping him research some material for a school project. I clicked on a link that came up due to an Internet search. Immediatly an explicit photo came up on the screen. It was soon off, and his mother and I discussed it with him. But, my point is that in a carefully guided search, my son and I were unexpectedly confronted with a sexually explicit photo.

As I remember the project, he was required to write a paper on the early costs of a new-born baby. He was identifying the clothing and costs required for that baby. Well, the baby that came up on the screen, without warning was not a new-born, and she was not wearing a diaper!

[Dr. Shane]

Years ago I used a search engine that would ask if one wanted pornographic results listed with others from a search. I don't know which it was. I think most all of us have been solicitted with pornographic material on the internet.