Path: news.nzbot.com!news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From: "Who really cares." <You_Have_Me@Mickysoft.com>
Subject: Re: Is it the real "Mummy"?
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.totty
References: <A4ydnU7UW6sjOnnWnZ2dnUVZ8iIAAAAA@giganews.com>
User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 09 May 2010 03:47:54 GMT
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <4be63069$0$12588$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130a212d.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=6d^55ABCQoX7mQFj[j<g\^L?0kYOcDh@Z8HccH2YT30QP^h2SkC]La[nj>J7T>h;VPLMZhZFh8KXY@_T>]bVBhmP
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.totty:4737
On Fri, 07 May 2010 18:52:30 -0500, Scruffy wrote:
> i have no idea, just wanted to add my 2c
>
> about 10 years ago the us realized they could not win the "drug war" and
>
> tired of looking bad with the public for their failure,
>
> they shifted to the "pedo war" a more socaily gratifying cause, win or
> not
>
> since then, we all have been feeling the pressure in the uk as most
> countries follow suit after the US
>
> my point? as appealing as the mummy edits may be, they bring unnecessary
> heat on all of us,
>
> posted by Mummy or not the 5 minutes of gratification is not worth the 5
> years in prison.
>
> even Usenet, the previous untouchable, uncensored, has surcum to the
> pressure of the US,
>
> im sure everyone here is gratefull for mummy's cp post,
>
> my only advice is you have a gud shredder to use after the 5min of
> glory.
>
> just my 2c
>
> Scruffy
This is an interesting analogy.
What is more interesting is the governments are hoping to convince the
public that filtering is a great method to block CP. Of course, once the
filters are in place, the usage will expand.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/38959
Hollywood, Big Music: We love kiddie porn!
p2pnet view Politics | Music | P2P:- p2pnet has often suggested IFPI is
short for International Federation of Phornographic Industry.
It seems we were correct.
“One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation
with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to
show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they
understand.”
The words are Johan Schlüter’s, and he uttered them “with a grin, his
whole being radiating pride and enthusiasm “, blogs Christian Engström
(right), “Pirate MEP“.
The IFPI is one of Big Music’s persecution and enforcement agencies, and
the MPA is the offshore arm of Hollywood’s MPAA (Motionless Picture
Association of America).
One of the first people to single out kiddie porn as a political lever was
Jack Valenti, the MPAA’s deceased mouthpiece.
At a Senate commerce committee hearing in 2003, he “characteristically,
hit the P2P porn meme the hardest, even, in a surreal moment, inviting the
Senators’ staffers to go download some porn from Kazaa and see for
themselves how vile it is,” said Edward Felten on Freedom to Tinker.
Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s RIAA quickly saw the
possibilities, adopting kiddie porn as a way catch the attention of
politicians looking for sure-fire headlines.
In this use of the kiddie porn ploy Schlüter, from the Danish Anti-Piracy
Group (a lobby outfit for the music and film industry associations,
Engström says), was addressing the US Chamber of Commerce in Stockholm.
That was two years ago and today, “the file sharing site The Pirate Bay is
blocked by all major Internet service providers in Denmark”, says
Engström, continuing >>>
The strategy explained by Mr. Schlüter worked like clockwork.
Start with child porn, which everybody agrees is revolting, and find some
politicians who want to appear like they are doing something. Never mind
that the blocking as such is ridiculously easy to circumvent in less than
10 seconds. The purpose at this stage is only to get the politicians and
the general public to accept the principle that censorship in the form of
”filters” is okay. Once that principle has been established, it is easy to
extend it to other areas, such as illegal file sharing. And once
censorship of the Internet has been accepted in principle, they can start
looking at ways to make it more technically difficult to circumvent.
In Sweden, the copyright lobby tried exactly the same tactic a couple of
months after the seminar where Johan Schlüter had been speaking. In July
2007, the Swedish police was planning to add The Pirate Bay to the Swedish
list of alleged child pornography sites, that are blocked by most major
Swedish ISPs.
The police made no attempt whatsoever at contacting anybody from The
Pirate Bay, which they of course should have done if they had actually
found any links to illegal pictures of sexual child abuse. The plan was to
just censor the site, and at the same time create a guilt-by-association
link between file sharing and child porn.
In the Swedish case, the plan backfired when the updated censorship list
leaked before it was put into effect. After an uproar in the bloggosphere,
the Swedish police was eventually forced to back down from the claim that
they had found illegal child abuse pictures, or had any other legal basis
for censoring the file sharing site. Unlike in Denmark, The Pirate Bay is
not censored in Sweden today.
But the copyright lobby never gives up. If they are unable to get what
they want on the national level, they will try through the EU, and vice
versa.
The big film and record companies want censorship of the net, and they are
perfectly willing to cynically use child porn as an excuse to get it. All
they needed was a politician who was prepared to do their bidding, without
spending too much effort on checking facts, or reflecting on the wisdom of
introducing censorship on the net.
Unfortunately they found one in the newly appointed Swedish EU
commissioner Cecilia Malmström. In March 2010 she presented an EU
directive to introduce filtering of the net, exactly along to the lines
that Johan Schlüter was advocating in his speech at the seminar in 2007.
I assume that commissioner Malmströms’s motives are honourable, and that
she genuinely believes she is doing something good that will prevent
sexual child abuse. But sweeping a problem under the carpet, or hiding it
behind filters, can never be the proper solution. If there actually are
sites distributing pictures of sexual child abuse openly on the net, the
sites should be shut down and the people behind them should be put in
prison (after a proper trial).
But Cecilia Malmström‘s Internet censorship directive will have no effect
at all on sexual child abuse in the world. All she will have achieved if
she is successful with this directive, will be to legitimize the principle
of Internet censorship in Europe, just like the copyright lobby wanted her
to.
It would be very sad if she succeeds.
|
|