# NY Looks To Pass Anti-Anonymous Bill



## Rydian (May 28, 2012)

NY Bill S6779-2011 seems to have good intentions to protect against cyber-bullying, but probably goes way too far.


> SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
> Section 1 contains definitions and requires a website administrator,
> upon request to remove any comments posted on his or her website by
> an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach
> ...







Bill

Pft, Costello just wants to come visit me and play pirated smash bros.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 28, 2012)

Doesn't make sense. Shouldn't anonymous posts still have an IP address tagged to them? Also, how many websites allow anonymous posting these days with all the spam bots running rampant around the net.


----------



## air2004 (May 28, 2012)

This is how it starts.


----------



## Rydian (May 28, 2012)

DSGamer64 said:


> Doesn't make sense. Shouldn't anonymous posts still have an IP address tagged to them?


With just an IP they have to go get the info from the ISP and then hope it wasn't a proxy and all that jass.



DSGamer64 said:


> Also, how many websites allow anonymous posting these days with all the spam bots running rampant around the net.


What we call "forum names" they call "anonymous".


----------



## Thesolcity (May 28, 2012)

I hate these cyber-bullying measures, they're absolute bullshit. Those commercials can piss off too.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (May 28, 2012)

David Smith from 2376 N. Appaloosa Ln., Texas says: FAK U MTHR FKER I KILL YOU


----------



## The Milkman (May 28, 2012)

I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?


----------



## triassic911 (May 28, 2012)

Would be cool if all our usernames changed to 'Anon'. I think we end up talking to each other very differently.


----------



## Sicklyboy (May 28, 2012)

Rydian said:


> DSGamer64 said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't make sense. Shouldn't anonymous posts still have an IP address tagged to them?
> ...



They're really defining a forum username as anonymous?  I'll admit I haven't looked at the bill, but based on the few excerpts and reports I had read about it, I had taken it to be mainly directed at places such as news websites that previously allowed anyone to comment, even without a username.


----------



## Frank Cadena (May 28, 2012)

Wow, cyber-bullyiing is really such a big issue? Enough to strip a person's right to privacy and safety? Because I just ignore bullies on the internet unless they're right in my face in person. Even then I could just run away. I'm pretty fast.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (May 28, 2012)

Cyber-Bullying is bullshit. Just quit Facebook or whatever social networking your using to stop being bullied online. Done.


----------



## Rydian (May 28, 2012)

plasma dragon007 said:


> They're really defining a forum username as anonymous?  I'll admit I haven't looked at the bill, but based on the few excerpts and reports I had read about it, I had taken it to be mainly directed at places such as news websites that previously allowed anyone to comment, even without a username.


They consider a forum anonymous as far as an actual name and home address and such is considered.  I quoted part of the bill's own self-presented summary.


----------



## FireGrey (May 28, 2012)

Cause getting stabbed during your sleep is better than being called a fanboy.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 28, 2012)

Consequences will never be the same.

On a more serious note, New York is going to ban posting anonymously, yet they legalized viewing child porn?

So, according to New York law, keeping your identity a secret is wrong but viewing naked underaged children in lewd acts is not?


----------



## Rydian (May 28, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Consequences will never be the same.
> 
> On a more serious note, New York is going to ban posting anonymously, yet they legalized viewing child porn?
> 
> So, according to New York law, keeping your identity a secret is wrong but viewing naked underaged children in lewd acts is not?


Link?


----------



## Thesolcity (May 28, 2012)

Rydian said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Consequences will never be the same.
> ...



Yes, link please. Considering cp has a federal ban, states should not be able to override it. Unless you're talking about lolicon..


----------



## Zerosuit connor (May 28, 2012)

I've never been cyber bullied and most idiots that do it don't know what a proxy is. They don't need to take it this far, also Zerosuit Connor = Not so anonymous.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 28, 2012)

Rydian said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Consequences will never be the same.
> ...


http://voices.yahoo....y-11331426.html

According to the law, since you're not technically "owning" the Child Porn simply by viewing it online, by their law it's not a crime.

How could anybody approve this? This is sick and disgusting. If states are going to try and use loopholes like this, there should be a national law where viewing child porn at all is illegal.


----------



## The Milkman (May 28, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > Haloman800 said:
> ...



I agree! Not because of the moral aspect, but because most underaged girls don't have much tit to look at to begin with (Chill bro, I'm 15.) Besides, I'm pretty sure its mentally damaging to those children to have to do those acts in the first place, on top of that I wouldn't be surprised if in most cases its raep anyway, either way its breaking a law. Great country we have here, a few idiots do stupid shit because of people on the internet, people in communities like us get to have a right violated, but in that same breath, its alright to look at little girls/boys in lewd acts as long as you don't dare press "Save Image". Its like western civilization just wants to collapse.


----------



## Fat D (May 28, 2012)

"Disgusting" is not really a good motivator for legislation. The children are physically hurt during the production, and the production only. If a video has been produced, it no longer matters how many people watch it. Therefore, I fail to understand why having those videos should be a crime in itself, rather than just evidence of one.
For that matter, where is the crime against a human in purely synthetic stuff, such as drawings? As long as no real child stood model for the act, no real child has been harmed. What is the crime? Is it because it is "icky"? Then do not watch it. That is what I do - I do not find stuff like this attractive, so I do not consume it. Now, can we focus our efforts on preventing actual humans from getting hurt instead of criminalizing those who never hurt one themselves?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2012)

Interesting and although we already did the username=anonymous definition I should mention several tech sites allow for usernames not to be attached to posts. Was there a case/rash of cases that spurred this or is this someone being well meaning but without an understanding of the law? Either way I will shake my head but I like to try to keep a tally on stupid knee jerk laws.

Oh well guess it is yet another reason not to host anything on servers located within US borders (as it stands I have already moved several clients out of US hosting arrangements). A pity as many US companies managed to straddle the cheap enough, fast enough, being well located and being reliable enough requirements to be worthwhile for SME upwards.

As for CP I will agree with some of the spirit of Fat D's post but will have to change it to mean dissemination should still be frowned upon at the very least until things are further clarified. I shall have to read the proposed(?) statute as well as it could be a badly worded attempt to stop the cases where people have adverts put stuff in their cache (several of the big sweeps years back amounted to it and caused serious aggro for very much innocent people). Such a distinction could pose an interesting dichotomy if it is wound into IP law as well (several cases have used the idea that as part of operation things are copied into memory and that alone makes for an infringement).


----------



## Redhorse (May 28, 2012)

Zerosuit connor said:


> I've never been cyber bullied and most idiots that do it don't know what a proxy is. They don't need to take it this far, also Zerosuit Connor = Not so anonymous.



by anonamous they may include forumn accounts that are set up using anon email addresses, and fake home addresses like AOL (are they stil serving email anyway?) Yahoo or Gmail, etc.... These can be set up on a public library computer, many homeless do this to have a way to get and send mailings.. without actually being traceable.  This is why some registration sites require you to use a paid (email) account for setting up these on-net email accounts, so as to be trace - able. Some (homesless) are not even aware they are being anon. Not all libraries use in house video of thier patrons yet, thank you god, this is getting out of hand. Where does 'take responsibility for your own' take over...also the government arm (aka long arm of the law...) is starting to look more and more like a tentacle every day.


FYI  about Home-less: a (alarmingly) large percentage of US veterans end up home-less and thier only incomes are from thier VA earned benifits... Also, Veterans have the highest Hepititus, rate, M.R.S.A. rate and physical diabilities  not to mention suicide rate.. Not all... 'giving your life for your country' takes place on the battle field, much takes place off of it.
Don't judge the homeless until you have walked a mile in thier shoes. There is no higher price than the cost of freedom. it isn't free.
Written on  Memorial Day in the US.


----------



## AlanJohn (May 28, 2012)

LAND OF THE FREE!! USA! USA! USA!


----------



## RupeeClock (May 28, 2012)

Anonymity works two ways, not only does it enable people to be hurtful, but it helps to shield them from being hurt.

If you're not strong enough of a person to go online with your actual name (a stupid idea to begin with in some areas), then take up some anonymous monicker and if things go awry or haywire, ditch the identity.

4chan is a good example of anonymity in effect, everybody is anonymous unless they choose not to be, and everyone is as ruthless as they are with each other.
That being said some places, like GBAtemp's own forums where an anonymous person takes up an identity, they may not be so ruthless or uninhibited, and be more civil.

The internet is not the place to be for hurt feelings, people are as uninhibited as they are behind a computer or a telephone because of little risk of consequence for saying something nasty.

Of course I'm not defending cyberbullying at all, but getting rid of anonymity means getting rid of a person's way to secure their identity online. How friggin' easy do you think people will be able to track down and assault in real life if it's mandatory to disclose their full name and location?


----------



## Fat D (May 28, 2012)

RupeeClock said:


> If you're not strong enough of a person to go online with your actual name (a stupid idea to begin with in some areas), then take up some anonymous monicker and if things go awry or haywire, ditch the identity.


That is why pseudonymity is such a great compromise. There is an identity to be proud of, but you can still jettison it in case of emergency.


RupeeClock said:


> Of course I'm not defending cyberbullying at all, but getting rid of anonymity means getting rid of a person's way to secure their identity online. How friggin' easy do you think people will be able to track down and assault in real life if it's mandatory to disclose their full name and location?


Which makes you more vulnerable to cyber-bullying, therefore subverting the very intention of the bill. At least the supposed one. It could well be about having the potential to track down blasphemers without having to go through the trouble of getting a pesky warrant to force the ISPs to disclose data.


----------



## smealum (May 28, 2012)

I don't mean to derail the thread, but :


Fat D said:


> "Disgusting" is not really a good motivator for legislation. The children are physically hurt during the production, and the production only. If a video has been produced, it no longer matters how many people watch it. Therefore, I fail to understand why having those videos should be a crime in itself, rather than just evidence of one.


I think the idea behind that is supply and demand. The government can't really stop the supply as my guess is it's often out of their jurisdiction (as in overseas), so they try and stop the demand so there won't be any supply. Allowing people to view/own child pornography would probably increase the production of such material, thus get more children harmed.
So no, viewing child pornography might not harm children directly, but it probably will harm some indirectly.


----------



## Fat D (May 28, 2012)

smealum said:


> I don't mean to derail the thread, but :
> 
> 
> Fat D said:
> ...


That still does not justify banning completely synthetic artwork - the only thing that would justify that would be that it turns people into paedophiles. You know, like seeing a naked man turns you gay. Except for the fact that it does not.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 28, 2012)

On one hand the point of the internet is being able to safely talk to people from across the globe and I certainly don't want the wrong people stumbling on my personal information.

On the other hand, it is definitely a "nut up or shut up" policy since a lot of people who are just welps in real life think they have so much power by being able to go to websites and act like a shithead without consequences. It's the central point behind how the concept of "trolling" works. They don't know me and I don't know them, so I'll act like an ass and they can't do anything (except a ban or such but even then it's easy enough to just use a proxy).


----------



## freaksloan (May 28, 2012)

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

These are the words I live by and teach my kids.

New York is becoming California 2.0


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (May 28, 2012)

The US constitution has long been looked upon as little more than kindling by the government, and this bill is merely another piece of decisive evidence in that regard.


----------



## Frank Cadena (May 28, 2012)

Anything, companies or governments or what have you, once it  has become big enough will act to protect itself and it's own interest. Damn everybody else. I believe that this is why this thinly veiled attempt at control of a bill was put forth. Because what better way to protect itself than to eliminate privacy and anonymity behind which lies security. From there on, dissent can be monitored and if need be, labeled as belligerent and a threat to national security, and then, using the 2012 NDAA, sic the military on them...

Wow, it's been a long time since my mind has gone that way... I'm old....

Anyways, on the previous subject of CP, the court is making a distinction between 'viewing' and 'possessing with the intent to view'. If the judge were to rule that viewing CP, just looking at them no matter the circumstance, were criminal, then even people who has been subject to a bait and switch that brought them to sites with CP on them or a page that may have pictures considered as CP or whatever the circumstance may be, can be prosecuted.  SO that means if someone were to post a picture of CP right now and you happen to see it before it's taken down... well if no such distinction were made then you can be tried and jailed because you saw it before it went down. So distinction is important.


----------



## Cyan (May 28, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?


Cyber bullying is not really/only based on "some retard over the internet" following someone on all the forum the person is posting to criticize his/her posts, but to criticism the person himself. And it's usually not a single person but a group.

I think it's more related to adolescent bullying their "known" school friend with weak psychology over the internet instead of doing it physically, because it's so easier to group on internet instead of doing it for real.
They are usually using Facebook groups for that, and all the school goes there to insult the victim, which often end by committing suicide to stop this.
I think it's more common that the victim and the bullyers know each others, and the "cyber" part is just a finality, not the start.

Well, that's for what I know and see on TV news.
There might be cases where the victim doesn't know the perpetrator at all, but I think it's easier to find someone weakness when you know that person for real.

On an anonymous forum like gbatemp for example, just don't come here anymore if someone bother you, or report him to staff. other users might take the defense of the victim too and report it. But sometime, all the users are against one member because of a particular behavior (it happened here, not so long ago).


----------



## The Catboy (May 28, 2012)

Like most laws for the internet, it's for a good cause, but poorly planned out.
If people now have to add their personal information to forums, that won't solve the problem, it will just cause more problems.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (May 28, 2012)

This proposed law is sort of like trying to kill termites with a flamethrower. Yeah, you kill the termites, but you're pretty much destroying the thing you're trying to protect in the process.


----------



## Zero Aurion (May 28, 2012)

This bill's a joke, right?


----------



## Fishaman P (May 28, 2012)

Good thing I don't live in New York.


----------



## The Milkman (May 28, 2012)

Cyan said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?
> ...


Lol, Valwin. But anyway, I just don't see why people don't use that BLOCK button or just report. I'm pretty sure Facebook has mods. And if you know them or not, they still must be sad or not have enough content in their own lives if they want to devote spare time to also bully you. The way I see it, is if you don't have the balls to speal your bullshit to my face, then your simply in your own little game that I have no time for. But to kill yourself over something like that? Seems way too dramatic when there's a block button or you can just not go on the site anymore.


----------



## Rydian (May 28, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Rydian said:
> 
> 
> > Haloman800 said:
> ...


I think you all are skimming.


> it is only illegal to "knowingly access child pornography with intent to view."


It sounds like the issue was proving whether somebody was actually TRYING to view child porn, or did it by accident.

I mean I'm sure you wouldn't like it if somebody on 4chan told you a link was to the new pokemon ROM, you clicked it only to find it was child porn, and were thus thrown into jail?  That's the kind of thing the ruling is about.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 28, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?



Even better, if you know where they live IRL, you can go smash them upside the head with a plank of wood. As someone who was a victim of bullying for almost a decade, I can safely say with confidence that victims should have a right to confront their bullies and deal with it themselves. It seems like politicians and school boards trying to stop bullying aren't really finding any concrete solutions. People stopped bullying me when I beat one of my classmates in grade 7 to a pulp (though some douche tried to pick on me in my first year of high school, kicked his ass too). They say violence isn't the answer, but I am of the opinion that if it shuts some dumbass up permanently and gets them to leave you alone, then violence was the answer.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 28, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?


I find this terribly ironic considering you claimed I was bullying you in another thread. Just sayin'.


----------



## Cyan (May 28, 2012)

It wasn't Valwin which I referred to, but someone who really got tired of everyone else comments, and he is still a member.
It was to show that even private forums like ours, simple users comments can affect others. It can be simple comments and not real bullying (and wasn't in this case), but the user felt differently and took it for attacks against himself. We had to talk to him to make things clear. You can't know what other people are thinking, everyone react differently.

If you don't think it's a cause to die, unfortunately other people do.
Not everyone has your spirit strength, and I already seen few emissions and news reports in France about bullying over facebook cases which ended with suicide.
They don't just hide or unsubscribe to bullying groups, on the contrary I guess they are curious to see what other people are thinking, and to see who are their real friend or not, and they are usually hurt by what they find.


Now, about the bill, requiring the removing of anonymity should not be abused. Like I said, users might think it's a bullying when it's not. Using these informations on false reports will be wrong.
Plus, it's only in one state so it can't be applied to most websites.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2012)

I know I already went but the other side of it is would you trust most site admins with the details? Black hat/slimier advertisers wet dream as far as I can see.

DSGamer64 if it truly worked that way fair enough but it so rarely does and it has been my experience unless you have a very good explanation (read a witness) or they actually tripped (it happened and nobody could prove otherwise) it is the one that comes off worse in a little dance that is the "victim" regardless of the person that actually instigated it and if actual serious damage happens it is even worse. Worse still physical prowess tends to get channeled into something and if you have just taken out a "star player" logic/proper procedure would not even stop to make eye contact on the way out of the country.

re "just block them".... I don't think it quite works like that primarily as not everybody has mastered detachment yet. Equally as I just saw Cyan mention false friends (ever seen someone goaded into something and dropped when it went sideways?).

I still maintain this looks like a very ill conceived law even by internet/technology law standards (as a rule if it features the word cyber and is not talking about cybernetics or cyberpunk it is probably someone that does not know better/anything saying something) based on the back of something of a non problem/nothing that truly needs a new law or even much of a modification to an existing law (case law at best).


----------



## DS1 (May 28, 2012)

FAST6191 said:


> I still maintain this looks like a very ill conceived law even by internet/technology law standards (as a rule if it features the word cyber and is not talking about cybernetics or cyberpunk it is probably someone that does not know better/anything saying something) based on the back of something of a non problem/nothing that truly needs a new law or even much of a modification to an existing law (case law at best).



On point as usual, and if you aren't familiar with American politics (which you probably are after the SOPA thing), very few lawmakers understand how "the internets" works. It's more like, "nobody can possibly oppose a law that aims to curtail bullying!", rather than, "Let's force everyone to give some super shady people their private info!"


----------



## The_Dragons_Mast (May 28, 2012)

Well leaving aside how stuipd the idea is how exactly do they think an admin can verify the accuricy of the personal infromation . As long as I provide a real name & address I see no way they can know for sure wheather they are mine or not .


----------



## Cyan (May 28, 2012)

I guess all countries have the same problem, the politicians don't understand what internet is but they make sure to create laws about it.


----------



## The Milkman (May 28, 2012)

soulx said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?
> ...


 I was waiting for you to bring that up. 
Yeah, well I clearly don't have the best vocabulary and you can be trollish at times, no?


----------



## The Milkman (May 28, 2012)

DSGamer64 said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't understand the concept of cyber bullying overall. I mean, if some retard over the internet clearly has nothing to do other then follow you around a forum and criticize your posts or troll you, why do you give a fuck about what they say?
> ...


Yeah, I used to do that quite a few times (especially in middle school, but most middle schoolers are idiots anyway) but I cant really fly off on someone who calls me a Fag or Noob or something now can I? If someone is PHYSICALLY bullying you then its ass whoopin time, but cyber bullying shouldn't call for that kind of a reaction.

(POSTS. YUNOMERGE?)


----------



## nando (May 28, 2012)

I dont understand this cyberbullying. I haven visited my facebook account in ages. Its very easy to check out and not give a damn


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 28, 2012)

nando said:


> I dont understand this cyberbullying. I haven visited my facebook account in ages. Its very easy to check out and not give a damn



While I've never experienced the "issue" or know anyone who has, I would assume the issue is that people want to use certain websites (like Facebook) and being "bullied" off of it is just a really bad way of giving in. It's like going to school and bullies sit at your lunch table and force you off. We would say that's a terrible thing but on the internet it's just a case of "Eh, who cares, he can just quit the site anyway".

Although I think a lot of stuff about cyberbullying is exaggerated (like ABC Family's recently infamous made-for-TV film "Cyberbully" aka "Cyberbu//y) and that there's a lot better ways to confront bullying as a whole than taking on only a facet of it. It's like if someone is anti-drug and they spent all their time trying to get rid of cocaine. Great, you got rid of cocaine, but there's still a whole lot of other drugs left.


----------



## Gahars (May 28, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> The US constitution has long been looked upon as little more than kindling by the government, and this bill is merely another piece of decisive evidence in that regard.



Because one bill introduced in one state's legislature clearly shows the federal government's disregard for the Constitution... how, exactly?


----------



## InuYasha (May 29, 2012)

And they say kids are our future....right......


----------



## The Milkman (May 29, 2012)

InuYasha said:


> And they say kids are our future....right......


Pssh, WE ARE. May not be the best of futures but look how much you guys durped up society.


----------



## machomuu (May 29, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> InuYasha said:
> 
> 
> > And they say kids are our future....right......
> ...


Looking at kids today (and being one), I'm not so sure that future would be bright, anyway.


----------



## DigitalDeviant (May 29, 2012)

I've had only one obnoxious person make personal attacks and be rather childish towards me on the temp, violent even. I was amazed at the stupid way that person was acting. Eventually the person was warned by one of the admins on the site. In my case it wasn't "life threatening" we'll say because there are more important things in life than ridiculous attacks from small minded people.


----------



## triassic911 (May 29, 2012)

DigitalDeviant said:


> I've had only one obnoxious person make personal attacks and be rather childish towards me on the temp, violent even. I was amazed at the stupid way that person was acting. Eventually the person was warned by one of the admins on the site. In my case it wasn't "life threatening" we'll say because there are more important things in life than ridiculous attacks from small minded people.


One thing I will never understand is why people talk like that, on a personal level. I'm sure most people on gbatemp don't know each other physically, so talking down to someone just shows how weak the person truly is. I'm no psychiatrist, but I assume people who actually talk a lot of shit and violent towards someone online is just begging for attention or it's a cry for help.


----------



## alphamule (May 29, 2012)

I read about this before and thought:  "Well, how _Korean_ of them." Southerners in the US probably know what figure of speech I'm making fun of.  It applies (sarcastically) to politicians in NYC, very well.

Regarding 'forum names': No, not anonymous.  Pseudonymous.  Technically, the name 'Anonymous' of a certain group of people that hang around on a certain IRC channel, is incorrect.  They use pseudonyms, not randomized names that keep changing every time they log in or (slightly less practical) no names at all.   Although it would be funny to use color names (note:  Mr and Mrs are possibly lies  ):


> "Hello, Mr. Green."
> "Hey"
> "Hi, Mrs. Scarlet and Mr. Yellow."
> "So, who or what are we going to make fun of on 4Chan tonight?"
> ...



Well, here's my take on it.  If you're not able to hide your real identity online or learn to control who can communicate with you, then maybe your parents shouldn't have let you use the Internet in the first place.  Is the term I'm looking for "Irony" when describing that protecting yourself by having many identities is going to be curtailed in order to keep... meh, my head will be hurting if I finish that convoluted chain of thought.  And this is coming from someone with a math and philosophy background.

Simple solution:  Get rid of all public Internet use except for businesses like banks and utilities and government and other professional purposes.  Just force people to run I2P nodes in order to talk online as individuals.  Yeah, sarcasm.  We'll see that end result though, if this control-freak BS keeps up.  Remember when Napster was *the* network for P2P music?  I agree that having a Facebook account in the first place is a big part of the problem.

Other problems are a lack of a sense of humor, it being hard to tell how someone is taking it, and not knowing when you've gone too far.  In person, it is often obvious when you've gone and done something really stupid with the kid who knows where you live.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (May 29, 2012)

Gahars said:


> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> > The US constitution has long been looked upon as little more than kindling by the government, and this bill is merely another piece of decisive evidence in that regard.
> ...


This isn't simply a question of one state. These spying laws, such as the PATRIOT Act, are par for the course in US politics, and they essentially have the same function: To erode the civil rights of the populace. But since you want to be specific, why not look only at New York? Let's see the other ways in which privacy has been a target:

-The NYPD's "legal" surveillance of Muslims and bullying of Occupy activists
-The excessive "Stop and Frisk" policy (which is currently the target of a class-action lawsuit)

Oh, and there's the fact that this bit of internet legislation has come upon the scene closely following the introduction of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CIPSA). I do not believe that this can be treated as an isolated incident.


----------



## Gahars (May 29, 2012)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> ...



Because a variety of overzealous policies, actions, and proposed laws (which, like the "Stop and Frisk" policy, easily can be challenged through legitimate political channels) are clearly a sign that the government is actively trying to destroy the civil rights of its citizens.

I think it's important to remember good, old Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence, ignorance, etc., etc.).


----------



## alphamule (May 29, 2012)

Zantigo said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Rydian said:
> ...


Uhm, there is the possibility of sending someone spam and that headline is sensationalism.  But technically, the feds don't have to accept any state's reasoning.  For example, just viewing a site leaves tons of images on your hard drive.  In the real world, when they prosecute people for this, they often have not kilobytes or megabytes, but gigabytes and even terabytes of stuff that is not even remotely 'art' by anyone's standards.  We're not talking someone with a couple childhood photos as a baby, but wholesale documentation of abused kids.  Motive and evidence of a habit will go a lot further than any state's statutes.  I'm curious though - do they actually use the 9th amendment (concept of unenumerated rights) or clauses of the constitution (a couple seem obvious) to support the nationwide ban.  States can define legal ages but the feds can prosecute.

If you have been viewing hundreds of pictures every day, that's going to get you convicted likely, no matter what.  Of course the law can be an ass and prosecute someone who had an encrypted file that they (partially) mirrored before deleting as a fake file and didn't realize what it was.  (Beware, ED2K users with the wrong kind of enemies, hehe)


----------



## jimmyemunoz (May 29, 2012)

triassic911 said:


> One thing I will never understand is why people talk like that, on a personal level. I'm sure most people on gbatemp don't know each other physically, so talking down to someone just shows how weak the person truly is. I'm no psychiatrist, but I assume people who actually talk a lot of shit and violent towards someone online is just begging for attention or it's a cry for help.


I totally understand people like this but let me explain. A person is rather anonymous on the net. They use an anonymous moniker and don't usually even put their true location. This builds up a wall where they feel they are empowered to act a fool, and say whatever they want, without consequences. When you end up being bothered by one of these types you can become drove. I recognize their mouthiness and act as a facade. People just aren't as aggressive or opinionated in "real life." I've come to the conclusion that their are many weak people who hide behind keyboards with big mouths. Most of the time crap can be put to an end by moderators, doing a good job. Once members see they can get away with something, they'll run with it and act a fool. I'm not a small guy and I'm respectful in public and like to make people laugh, but when one of these immature internet users wants to throw their opinion around rather ruthlessly and it's aimed towards me......I feel like showing them what I'm made out of. I'm a big, strong guy and I could totally give someone a real bad day and a trip to the hospital if I wanted to. The point is, I don't act like a fool on the internet or in real life, so I expect the same from others. Is that asking too much? Respect me and I'll respect you!


----------



## The Milkman (May 29, 2012)

alphamule said:


> Zantigo said:
> 
> 
> > Haloman800 said:
> ...


I must be a dumbass or something because I understood very little of what you said, can you kind of re-explain XD


----------



## Vampire Lied (May 29, 2012)

Fat D said:


> "Disgusting" is not really a good motivator for legislation. The children are physically hurt during the production, and the production only. If a video has been produced, it no longer matters how many people watch it. Therefore, I fail to understand why having those videos should be a crime in itself, rather than just evidence of one.
> For that matter, where is the crime against a human in purely synthetic stuff, such as drawings? As long as no real child stood model for the act, no real child has been harmed. What is the crime? Is it because it is "icky"? Then do not watch it. That is what I do - I do not find stuff like this attractive, so I do not consume it. Now, can we focus our efforts on preventing actual humans from getting hurt instead of criminalizing those who never hurt one themselves?



If the child or family of the child in question knows the video/pics are still out there, that would be considered mental anguish.
Either you're trolling or just sick in the head yourself.  "The deed was done, so viewing the product of said violation is okay."
The answer is NO, its not okay.
Who would view this type of thing other than a kiddie fiddler or potential kiddie fiddler?
They should be found and executed.
As for cyber bullying, just go offline or stop using the site you're being bullied from or block the person.
Cyber bullying is bullshit. Are the victims that dim not to avoid the bully?  SMH


----------



## alphamule (May 29, 2012)

Well, no amount of effort will eliminate it.  But that doesn't mean we can't at least make up for it by helping the victims.  One way is to harshly punish the producers and anyone selling/trading the 'evidence'.  The self confidence boost from knowing that at least SOMETHING can be done, has to help in some way.  Preventing it from happening to other victims of that person (often relative or trusted person but sometimes strangers) is pretty important, rather from arrests or self defense.  Getting people to come forward when it happens to them in order to prevent someone getting away with it for 20 years, is also important.

As far as explaining my previous post, I'm assuming that Zantigo read that article someone posted.  When you click on www.gbatemp.net, your computer automatically downloads many, many files.  Now imagine that someone Rick-rolls you with a Rick Astley video.  In that case, your computer automatically downloaded the movie and kept a copy in the cache or at least the swap file.  You did not actually have to actively seek out 1980's music, in order to see and hear his video.  If you got annoyed and tried to erase it from your mind after reporting the fake link, that's not seeking it out.  If you then go on and view every 1980's music video, then you're seeking out related but different material.  If you found "Never Gonna Give You Up" on Youtube by looking up Rick Astley, then you obviously actively seeked it out.  Now replace Rick with perverted videos of children and then you have an idea of what kinds of issues exist.

"They should be found and executed."  This might be a good point to close this.  That sounds like flame war material.


----------



## liamash3 (May 29, 2012)

DS1 said:


> very few lawmakers understand how "the internets" works. It's more like, "nobody can possibly oppose a law that aims to curtail bullying!", rather than, "Let's force everyone to give some super shady people their private info!"



I'm looking forward to 10 years down the line then, when we have people who've grown up using the net making laws and such. Unfortunately, that might be too late at the current rates. *sigh* Governments never really seem to listen to the people the rule much...I think if they listened more, they might end up running the place better.


----------



## alphamule (May 29, 2012)

Naw, then they'll make laws that are effective at making the Internet even harder to use.  j/k?  You never know.  Most likely, they'll at least not look so damn "LOL, how the hell?" to most users.


----------



## Fat D (May 29, 2012)

Vampire Lied said:


> If the child or family of the child in question knows the video/pics are still out there, that would be considered mental anguish.
> Either you're trolling or just sick in the head yourself.  "The deed was done, so viewing the product of said violation is okay."
> The answer is NO, its not okay.
> Who would view this type of thing other than a kiddie fiddler or potential kiddie fiddler?
> They should be found and executed.


No. I am a radical liberal. I condemn the act of [censored] against a child as much as you do (though I still do not believe in killing people over such things), but by watching the video, you do not hurt anyone. I understand that my opinion is quite unpopular, and neither I, nor anyone I like, nor anyone I think I could like has anything to benefit from it, but it is against my ideals to legislate away something that does not do direct damage to anyone.
I do not know who, other than a paedophile, would enjoy watching it, but I do not care. Fact is that by watching the video you are not automatically raping a child. And as I mentioned before, this still leaves entirely fictional content like lolicon manga.
Wait a second... did you just say that you would like to see every paedophile in the world executed for having the potential to possibly [censored] a child? Now that is what I find offensive. Again, not because I know any paedophiles, but if just being abnormal and having the potential to commit a crime can warrant execution, what good do human rights do?
Regarding the fact that the videos being in circulation might be traumatic, I think that would fall into the domain of privacy and not [censored].

Speaking of having an unpopular opinion defending things everyone including myself hates, there are other issues on which I have similar views. I do not do drugs (I never smoked and hardly ever drink alcoholic beverages), I do not have friends who do drugs, yet I am against narcotic laws. Granted, drug abuse is way more harmless than child [censored], but remember, I am all in favor of pursuing (or, better yet, preventing) [censored]. The resources wasted on people merely consuming media might be better invested in those cases, too.


----------



## alphamule (May 30, 2012)

Which is kind of why I warned about the fire hazard.  Many people assume that an accusation is equivalent to guilt, which I tried to point out without setting off tempers.  It also seems to be assumed that because you don't automatically agree with someone, you must be a dirty pedo, too.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 30, 2012)

liamash3 said:


> I'm looking forward to 10 years down the line then, when we have people who've grown up using the net making laws and such. Unfortunately, that might be too late at the current rates. *sigh* Governments never really seem to listen to the people the rule much...I think if they listened more, they might end up running the place better.



"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" -Winston Churchill

People are absolutely retarded and the government does listen to them, whether you want to live in denial or not. In America at least, we vote for our representatives and the people as a whole represent a certain "check and balance" to the government as a whole. If you dick around in the government then the people will out you. Unless you're the Supreme Court in which case you just kinda chill until you die or resign.


----------



## triassic911 (May 30, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> liamash3 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking forward to 10 years down the line then, when we have people who've grown up using the net making laws and such. Unfortunately, that might be too late at the current rates. *sigh* Governments never really seem to listen to the people the rule much...I think if they listened more, they might end up running the place better.
> ...


Great to see aliens like you are aware and have not fallen prey to the government's grasp.


----------



## alphamule (May 30, 2012)

Actually, it's the lack of transparency and constant lying (protected by said opaqueness) that causes a lot of that.  But still, even if that wasn't true, not wanting to find out that your apple cart of a belief system is about to be flipped or just plain apathy has an effect as well.


----------



## 59672 (May 30, 2012)

Rydian said:


> Haloman800 said:
> 
> 
> > Consequences will never be the same.
> ...



What he said is somewhat true, don't have the link on hand though. It isn't legal to purposely view child porn but if you stumble upon it (ie someone links you a pic on an image hosting site that is CP) and did not mean to, you won't be charged for possession. Its more or less common sense that that's how it should be, they just clarified that.

edit: and I just realized I forgot that I wasn't on the latest page...


----------



## alphamule (May 31, 2012)

Am I the only one to think they meant the guys wearing the Sky Fawkes masks?


----------



## Rydian (Jun 1, 2012)

Given all the news surrounding them at one point, don't blame you.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 4, 2012)

Fat D said:


> "Disgusting" is not really a good motivator for legislation. The children are physically hurt during the production, and the production only. If a video has been produced, it no longer matters how many people watch it. Therefore, I fail to understand why having those videos should be a crime in itself, rather than just evidence of one.
> For that matter, where is the crime against a human in purely synthetic stuff, such as drawings? As long as no real child stood model for the act, no real child has been harmed. What is the crime? Is it because it is "icky"? Then do not watch it. That is what I do - I do not find stuff like this attractive, so I do not consume it. Now, can we focus our efforts on preventing actual humans from getting hurt instead of criminalizing those who never hurt one themselves?


So, you're saying production of child porn should cease, but all the child porn that already exists should be legal to view and distribute? If this was the case, then more people would be exposed to it, therefore more people would get into it, and there would be a higher demand for it then ever, thus more of it would be produced and distributed to meet the demand. Supply and demand.

It would be impossible to pass and maintain a law that states "OK, child porn production will now cease indefinitely, but feel free to enjoy the films that have already been produced!" It's illegal to produce child porn now (in America and most countries), yet it is still being produced. Even if it was completely illegal AND somehow enforced in the US, that's not stopping other countries from producing it and smuggling it in or distributing it via the internet. That would be like planting a garden of apple trees, and then in turn, forbidding them from producing apples.

Legalizing child porn in ANY way is bad and 100% wrong. It is sick and disgusting (As I've stated) and harmful to the child, both mentally and physically.



EDIT: I'm over complicating this

What you said would be like saying, "If a man kidnapped a girl, raped and tortured her, and eventually murdered her, and he filmed all of this, it's OK for people to watch it, since the deed is done & we can't bring her back."

--
That would be: Disrespectful (to her memory), harmful (to potential viewers), perversely influential (to people who may get ideas), and sinful to watch such lewd, disgusting, evil, perverted acts. It's all of this and much much more.

"Abstain from all appearance of evil" 1st Thessalonians 5:22 .


----------



## Fat D (Jun 7, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> So, you're saying production of child porn should cease, but all the child porn that already exists should be legal to view and distribute? If this was the case, then more people would be exposed to it, therefore more people would get into it, and there would be a higher demand for it then ever, thus more of it would be produced and distributed to meet the demand. Supply and demand.


Because the ability to view child pornography is what causes people to become paedophiles in the first place, right.



Haloman800 said:


> It would be impossible to pass and maintain a law that states "OK, child porn production will now cease indefinitely, but feel free to enjoy the films that have already been produced!" It's illegal to produce child porn now (in America and most countries), yet it is still being produced. Even if it was completely illegal AND somehow enforced in the US, that's not stopping other countries from producing it and smuggling it in or distributing it via the internet. That would be like planting a garden of apple trees, and then in turn, forbidding them from producing apples.


I have faith that the amount of people who would pay to fund [censored] videos to a point where someone in some country might [censored] for monetary gain is not much larger than the amount of people willing to break the law to acquire such videos. I sincerely doubt legality will create a mass market for it, because, as you said yourself, the material is disgusting for pretty much everyone.



Haloman800 said:


> Legalizing child porn in ANY way is bad and 100% wrong. It is sick and disgusting (As I've stated) and harmful to the child, both mentally and physically.


Again, it is the shooting that directly harms the child. I am all in favor of banning that, and pulling the resources spent on prosecuting the comparatively harmless watchers to fight actual crime like that.




Haloman800 said:


> EDIT: I'm over complicating this
> 
> What you said would be like saying, "If a man kidnapped a girl, raped and tortured her, and eventually murdered her, and he filmed all of this, it's OK for people to watch it, since the deed is done & we can't bring her back."
> 
> ...


Disrespect should be dealt with by privacy laws, not sex offender laws. Harm and influence to viewers apply only if you believe that seeing child porn would cause people to magically turn into paedophiles, instead of, say, forcing them to look away in disgust, which is what I surely hope most people who see this and know there is no way for them to help would do. "Sinful" sounds like you are basing the morality for your judgment on a dogmatic code, which leads straight to:


Haloman800 said:


> "Abstain from all appearance of evil" 1st Thessalonians 5:22 .


I am a heathen, so you are not going to convince me with what Paul of Tarsus said. In fact, Paul is probably the worst of the early church of Jesus when it comes to his moral ideals.

Now, if anyone is still reading this:
Even if we were to agree that viewing [censored] video is bad, what about material that harms no child? Do you think that someone who imports lolicon manga should be considered a sex offender simply because the material is deviant?
Or go one step further, entirely outside the domain of interest that could be tied to paedophile tendencies. What about naked baby photos? People have gotten in trouble with them before, so this is not just a theoretical danger. The worst harm that comes from them might be a bit of embarrasment in their teenage years - but the mere presence of the pictures had threatened their parents' custody over their children, which would have done a lot more harm to the children than leaving the issue alone.


----------



## alphamule (Jun 7, 2012)

Epic topic derailing.  I'll have to remember that along with the "Godwin" or (newer) Ron Paul/Obama/Romney methods.  Yeah, if I didn't know any better, I'd think the KP thing was deliberate.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 7, 2012)

Fat D said:


> Because the ability to view child pornography is what causes people to become paedophiles in the first place, right.



Exactly. You seem to understand this, so this would render the rest of your argument, which states that no harm can come of viewing child porn, erroneous and false. Because if we stop the creation of pedophiles, the production of child porn will cease. This is a basic concept of marketing, supply and demand.



> I have faith that the amount of people who would pay to fund [censored] videos to a point where someone in some country might [censored] for monetary gain is not much larger than the amount of people willing to break the law to acquire such videos. I sincerely doubt legality will create a mass market for it, because, as you said yourself, the material is disgusting for pretty much everyone.


 Anything that is wrong should not be tolerated in the smallest amount. I'm talking about if we want to end child porn for good, we must stop the production AND distribution of it.

Now, I know that child porn will probably never completely die out, but it will cease dramatically if it was illegal to produce AND distribute.



> Again, it is the shooting that directly harms the child. I am all in favor of banning that, and pulling the resources spent on prosecuting the comparatively harmless watchers to fight actual crime like that.


If all of its consumers are prosecuted, there will be no one left to sell it to, and the production will cease. The people who enjoy and view child porn are the opposite of harmless. These are the people you see on NBC getting busted by Chris Hansen, the people who attempt sex with a minor, whether forced or consensual.




> Disrespect should be dealt with by privacy laws, not sex offender laws. Harm and influence to viewers apply* only if you believe that seeing child porn would cause people to magically turn into paedophiles*, instead of, say, forcing them to look away in disgust, which is what I surely hope most people who see this and know there is no way for them to help would do. "Sinful" sounds like you are basing the morality for your judgment on a dogmatic code, which leads straight to:
> 
> 
> I am a heathen, so you are not going to convince me with what Paul of Tarsus said. In fact, Paul is probably the worst of the early church of Jesus when it comes to his moral ideals.


What other way do you think people turn into pedophiles? By watching normal porn? The more people who are exposed to it, the more people will become pedophiles.



> Now, if anyone is still reading this:
> Even if we were to agree that viewing [censored] video is bad, what about material that harms no child? Do you think that someone who imports lolicon manga should be considered a sex offender simply because the material is deviant?
> Or go one step further, entirely outside the domain of interest that could be tied to paedophile tendencies. What about naked baby photos? People have gotten in trouble with them before, so this is not just a theoretical danger. The worst harm that comes from them might be a bit of embarrasment in their teenage years - but the mere presence of the pictures had threatened their parents' custody over their children, which would have done a lot more harm to the children than leaving the issue alone.


I hope you understand the difference between cartoon porn and child porn. There aren't any victims in the production of hentai, however, in the production of actual child porn, the child is mentally and physically scarred, usually for life. Whether or not the material is "deviant" is irrelevant and besides the point.

I've never heard of anyone getting arrested for possessing naked baby photos. That's also besides the point, "naked baby photo possession" isn't a rampant issue in the United States and other countries, and not the one being addressed here.

The simple concept you seem to fail to understand is Supply and Demand. If the demand for child porn ceases, then the production (the "Supply") will also cease.

Here's an example why your solution will never work. Let's take a look at Japan's laws on child porn. It is illegal to produce and distribute child porn, but it is 100% legal to own and view it. Because of this, they are one of the top producers, distributers, AND consumers of Child Porn in the world. The law that states they must not produce it hasn't stopped anybody.

It's gotten so bad there, they actually sell little girl's panties in vending machines. They also produce "lolicon manga", drawn child porn, as you have stated.

Unless you law down strict laws AND enforce them regarding production and consumption, child porn will still be produced and distributed.

--


We've gotten completely off topic, I don't want to be responsible for this thread being locked, so I'm ending this here.


----------



## alphamule (Jun 9, 2012)

So, when is your appointment to have your neural panopticon chip installed?  (Sorry, couldn't resist)
I mean, because that's the only way to make sure that NO ONE ever does anything illegal.  In practice, we use strong forensic techniques to identify criminal use of the Internet just like we do for criminal use of cars, guns, drugs, video cameras (not just pedos make illegal films), or whatever.  We still have spammers - sigh. *reads between the lines and doesn't want to embarrass by outright saying anything*
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bulle/2012/06/kids_on_facebook_why_the_social_network_shouldn_t_be_allowed_to_sign_up_preteens_.html  And in further news, children of the previous generation's Tobacco company executives have found a new way to do evil to children.


----------

