I am occasionally regaled by tales from investigators I have assisted with descriptions of jail sentences handed down to abusers- you would think that would be satisfying. It's not. It's just confirmation by jury and society that they were in fact evil human beings and in a couple of years they'll be back. And that's grim.
Yeah, I get it, you're a dedicated do-gooder and people don't stroke your ego often enough. You're a legend in your own mind.
>I'm not sure why free speech IS file sharing in your argument.
"file sharing" or 'freeloaders watching movies without paying' is a minor consequence of free speech on the internet.
>You're also making assumptions about the law I operate under.
Your rhetoric falls within what I would classify as typical American scaremongering. TBH, if you're going to make these kinds of posts in a thread about the US DOJ's crowing about their success defending private industry's profit goals; I don't think it matters much.
The reason you're not sure file sharing is free speech is because your thinking is still clouded by the notion that there is such a thing as "intellectual property".
Property, that pesky word with a relentlessly concrete meaning, is something in the material world that can be bought, sold, stolen, given, auctioned, and after any or all of those actions, it still exists in the same quantity it existed before. Examples: land, cars, computers.
When a person P steals property from another person Q, then it must be true P now is in possession of the property, and Q is not in possession of the property anymore.
When you say a sentence out loud, I can remember it and say it again to someone else. That does not mean I stole that sentence from you (it may mean I'm unoriginal), because you still have the ability to say it.
Now say you say a sentence so long I want to write it down so I can say it again. I write it down and save it on a file on my computer. I give this file to my friends - that is, I give copies of this file to my friends. Now we all have a file that represents that long sentence you uttered, and yet not my friends nor I have taken that sentence away from you.
A file is a long sentence written down. It is speech. It is not property like cars, land and computers. I hope this helps.
I'm not happy with the approach of prosecuting people for copyright infringement and then claiming they deserve it because of the child abuse material. That's a bait-and-switch.
However, this apparently did not serve as the grounds for punishment, and is not mentioned in statements quoted in the article—the whole deal seems to hinge on copyright infringement allegations.
I reached out to the ncmec people and spent SIX. MONTHS. trying to get access to PhotoDNA, and have got the runaround for six months. They sent me a garbage URL block list (amazingly dumb idea, by the way.. that thing is so fucking dangerous I won't even touch it) and gave me access to their fancy report tool, but no PhotoDNA. I finally just gave up because I don't have time to fight with them, I need access to photodna and if they won't give it to me, fine.
Until you finally provide the technology to detect child pornography in a reasonably accessible way, it is not the host's fault, it's yours. You are fucking up, and you are fucking up bad.
If you actually give a shit about dealing with this problem, go into NCMEC and start throwing bricks, seriously. Until then, expect pretty much every host ever to have child porn on it, because we can't stop it because we're prevented from using the tech by nonprofits that don't function and industry partnerships we can't afford. contact@neocities.org if anyone wants to be a hero and actually cares, I'm not expecting an email.
The police never cared about any potential copyright infringement (which I'm fairly certain must have occurred as well simply because we could not possibly monitor all the uploads manually).
Eventually I clued in to a way to really close the door on the childporn if we could collaborate even more tightly but before this could get off the ground my main contact at the dutch police force died and his replacement did not show much interest (there was a huge flap with child porn made in daycare centers here at the time so I can see why he would have been too busy).
Absent the collaboration I shut the service down, but in principle I think file sharing services have many good aspects, they are just tools and can be used for good and bad alike.
"For the children" is a readily abused argument for about any collateral damage that incurs with about any attempt to filter, block or control aspects of the internet and by extension our free society. But even "for the children" must be balanced against the damage we're doing while rallying under that banner.
Of course, Hollywood really doesn't give a sh*t about CP, and the CP is just a side effect of what they deem to be a massive threat to their antiquated business model.
But keep up the good work, I'm sure it's getting tougher and tougher as this stuff goes more underground. Question: Would you rather the CP stayed a bit more "mainstream" so it was easier to catch people, or overall is "less" damage done if it goes more underground?
Yeh, they should sort the business model. I'm not in favor of actions that perpetuate ignoring the rule of law. If a rule is bad, change it, don't just ignore it being broken. It breeds corruption on both sides. See prostitution and most forms of prohibition
Think about it this way- would you prefer street racers did their thing and broke laws (yes I have a bit of OCD like a lot of folks in tech- mine includes the Criminal Code) in public where the law is..flouted.. or had to go out of their way, to somewhere only those who want to engage in that activity go.
The biggest issue I see is that legitimate tools for protest are being subverted, perhaps by a majority, based on traffic analysis of TOR by Standford.
The "think of the children" argument is tired.
This is not a victory!