Feds seek Google records in porn probe

[CAnnoneer]

Plenty of the things you men like to look kinda gross me out.

It would be pretty disturbing if they did not. Men and women are supposed to be different. Relish the differences.

 

[taliv]

I've never heard of beacons, but I did a web search. Are you talking about encoded software that causes your computer to emit an electromagnetic signal that can be received by a van out in front of your house? I fail to see how that applies to this specific discussion.

no. try here.

Also called a Web bug or a pixel tag or a clear GIF. Used in combination with cookies, a Web beacon is an often-transparent graphic image, usually no larger than 1 pixel x 1 pixel, that is placed on a Web site or in an e-mail that is used to monitor the behavior of the user visiting the Web site or sending the e-mail.

i can't stress enough that the fact that you've never heard of a technology has no bearing on whether or not it can be used to track you.

sorry for the brief response, i'll try to give more detail sometime this weekend

 

[hoppinglark]

Could someone please explain to me what's so bad about this?
If I walk down the street to the video store and want to buy a dirty movies I have to prove I'm over 18.
If I buy a dirty movie or magazine and give it to kids, it's illegal.

But not on the Internet?

sorry I dont see the boogeymen on this one...

 

[Ryder]

Reward Google? You think they are doing this to benefit our rights?

This makes up for the fact that they ban advertisers of firearms?

Whatever

Entertaining thread even if I am not in their databanks.

 

[AStone]

"From my cold, dead, calloused hand..."

<The only significant chuckle I experienced while reading this thread>

Yeah, I 'explored' porn for a while, <he admits>.

But it got old.

Then, I found 'gun porn'.

Why, even cheerleaders covered with whipped cream sitting on illegal female donkies doesn't trump a fine set of vintage shotguns, or ... even better <panting now> explicit pictures of 642's.

Oh my g ... I'm ... so <pant> excited ...

For the last six months, my google searches have been dominated
(to the total exclusion of 'porn' <what ever that means>)
by googles on the following:

Savage arms
Remington 700
Remington 700 XCR <hot>
870P
frangible
reduced recoil shotgun ammo
ayoob
.357
SW 642
Kahr 9mm
CZ .22LR
.243
.308
7mm08...

And I've learned much.

Go go oogle.

 

[Johnny_Yuma]

Don't worry, Biker

Um....well...I'm sure that mature/latex/lesbian porn is legal. Right?

Anyone?

Biker

They'll have to prosecute most of the Bureau special agents I know before they get to you! And ALL of the DEA agents....

JY

 

[Herself]

It would be pretty disturbing if they did not. Men and women are supposed to be different. Relish the differences.

Duh. That was why I mentioned it.

--H

 

[Old Dog]

Interesting to me how many people focus mainly on the technical aspects of this whole situation. For a moment, can we look at the actual issue of child porn (without getting too off-track from the thread)?

I wonder if perhaps many of those who enjoy gazing at images of child pornography on their computers may just, one day, put their sick lust for sexual experiences with children into action ...Or -- perhaps they already have abused children, and supplement that experience with computer child porn.

Or maybe images of child porn on the computer are enough to satisfy someone who might otherwise commit actual child sexual abuse? Somehow I doubt this, though ...

I'm wondering if any of our attorneys onboard have ever prosecuted or defended a child sex abuse case and had it come to light that the defendent was a frequent viewer of child porn images on his computer?

I served as a member of a court-martial (the equivalent of being on a civilian jury) a few years back. The defendent was charged with multiple sexual offenses on a young girl (who had been five at the time). We, the members, were sent out of the court numerous times as the admissibility of certain evidence was being discussed. As it happened, we were not allowed to hear (or see) some of the evidence as there were issues of how the prosecution had obtained the evidence.

We voted to hammer the defendent. There was more than enough evidence (the girl testified) that she'd been abused. However, we could have added even more years to the sentence -- and we would have, had we heard the disallowed evidence: the local PD had seized the defendent's computers, in which he had stored hundreds of images of child sexual abuse, and further, had been accessing for a long time, websites containing child porn.

Anyway, I wish such things did not exist. However, I applaud Google's stance (thus far) -- but, as a previous poster pointed out, there's probably more to it than what we know -- surely Google is protecting itself, and also as said, perhaps Google doesn't want some information about its own practices coming to light.

I find it interesting that we come to object now, on Consitutional grounds, of government intrusion into our lives -- in aspects of our lives that did not even exist 20 years ago. Fascinating.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I wonder if perhaps many of those who enjoy gazing at images of child pornography on their computers...

I wonder how many of those people actually exist. I'm sure there are some, and they are despicable to be sure, but what are their actual numbers? Is this really as huge a problem as the Justice Department would have us believe? If it is, as I suspect, a statistically insignificant problem, why would the Justice Department use this heinous but infrequent problem to whip us into a self-righteous frenzy? Could the JD have other motives, like perhaps frightening us into giving up even more of our liberty than we already have?

I suspect the reason we have never seen any actual statistics on the frequency of child porn is because once we saw how rare it really is the JD would have a harder time using it as a tool for fear mongering.

 

[hoppinglark]

I don't know about that.

when yahoo chat had user rooms there was always a few preteen pic trading rooms in the list
*shudders*

I'm always getting junk in my email that features, "young russians" "preteen girls in croatia" and other sick names that warrent an instant delete.

It's big overseas, so i think it has a following here too.

 

[BenW]

Interesting to me how many people focus mainly on the technical aspects of this whole situation. For a moment, can we look at the actual issue of child porn (without getting too off-track from the thread)?

Old Dog, it is my sincerest hope that no one who posts on this forum is engaged in the despicable activity of child pornography. I think what many of us are arguing is the "foot in the door" principle. When I see something like this, I temper my "yeah, get the dirty bastards" response with the question: "What would my most loathed politician do with this methodology of information gathering?"

For me, the question of what the gov is doing here is really no different than what they do with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, under the current administration, does little to affect me based on the way I live my life (other than the headaches at the airport). But under an administration completely opposed to my political philosophy, it scares me to death. Hence I don't like the Patriot Act. Same with the request for web surfing habits. Today it's child porn, in 2 years it could be "terrorists buying evil SKS 'assault rifles' from aimsurplus.com".

 

[CAnnoneer]

we could have added even more years to the sentence -- and we would have, had we heard the disallowed evidence: the local PD had seized the defendent's computers, in which he had stored hundreds of images of child sexual abuse, and further, had been accessing for a long time, websites containing child porn.

Please explain why you would add more years because he had pictures on his computer.

By the same logic, would you add more years to a person found guilty of firearm manslaughter because he has a large gun collection?

 

[Old Dog]

Please explain why you would add more years because he had pictures on his computer.

Excellent question. If you've any experience as a member of a jury, you might find out that every jury member's feelings regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendent are different. Some members practically need to see film of a defendent committing the crime. Others will readily believe the witness or victim testimony, regardless of whether or not there's other corroborating evidence (i.e., DNA or other physical evidence).

In the case I mentioned, we had a couple CM members who weren't totally convinced by the testimony of the victim (as you know, children can be "coached" by the prosecution or simply make up stories outright).

Had there been other evidence (that we, the CM members were exposed to), it would have been much, much easier to get a vote for the maximum sentence during the sentencing stage of the court martial. Often -- jury trials reach verdicts, or sentences, as a result of compromise.

By the same logic, would you add more years to a person found guilty of firearm manslaughter because he has a large gun collection?

Absolutely not. For one thing -- that's NOT the same logic. CAnnoneer, c'mon, I expect better from you.

 

[antarti]

wonder if perhaps many of those who enjoy gazing at images of child pornography on their computers may just, one day, put their sick lust for sexual experiences with children into action ...Or -- perhaps they already have abused children, and supplement that experience with computer child porn.

I don't think there's a single form of punishment I would mind seeing inflicted on those who victimize children, but we're not talking about good police-work and arrest of the guilty here.

Any automated system is going to have problems differentiating the scumbag from the victim of some popup scripting or browser hijacking who thinks what just came onscreen is disgusting and in fact never asked for it. By that point, the file has been cached (by the browser and possibly the OS disk cache), cookies could be planted or updated, and the http requests and responses have been sent. No matter the link title was "Oriental Gardening for beginners" and the URL actually took you somewhere else, the electric eye noted it.

The creation of the porn is the crime, and like murder, I don't think people who see the equivalent of the chalk outlines and morgue pics years later should be prosecuted as if they encouraged, planned or committed it. There is a difference, but not to a machine.

This is a crime too heinous to tar and feather the innocent with even the accusation of it without solid evidence. Good luck restoring any semblance of your reputation after an arrest even if it goes nowhere.

 

[CAS700850]

Let's say they get the list. My name pops up. I'll admit that I've looked around to see what's out there. Purely an intellectual exercise.

So what? Did I break any laws? Are they gonna try and use that for a P.C. statement in support of a search warrant to look and see if I have kiddie porn?

I'm afraid that this will be just another list my name appears on, and yet another reason while I may be an "undesirable" when Big Brother creates his militirized future state. Guns? Check. Porn? Check. Fatty foods? Check. Alcohol? Check. Lawyer? Double check.

 

[KriegHund]

(Qoute that used to be here wasnt really relavent.)
The problem can be related to guns.

There are those who abuse guns. The anti-gunners wish to ban all guns because of this, "To save a single life makes it wortwhile". They wish to regulate and track gun owners for this purpose.

All people are monitered because of a few sick ****s just like all gun owners must be monitered because of a few physco killers.

Im all for tracking down child pornographers and viewers thereof. What i am NOT for is tracking every single google search to do so.

You cannot have it both ways...

To further inforce the point, ill rephrase that.

Im all for tracking down murders and the people that help them. What i am NOT for is registering every single gun owner to do so.

 

[Manedwolf]

Old Dog, it is my sincerest hope that no one who posts on this forum is engaged in the despicable activity of child pornography. I think what many of us are arguing is the "foot in the door" principle. When I see something like this, I temper my "yeah, get the dirty bastards" response with the question: "What would my most loathed politician do with this methodology of information gathering?"

For me, the question of what the gov is doing here is really no different than what they do with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, under the current administration, does little to affect me based on the way I live my life (other than the headaches at the airport). But under an administration completely opposed to my political philosophy, it scares me to death. Hence I don't like the Patriot Act. Same with the request for web surfing habits. Today it's child porn, in 2 years it could be "terrorists buying evil SKS 'assault rifles' from aimsurplus.com".

There's also the fact that simply accusing someone of having viewed child porn, even just as RUMOR, is the smear tactic equivalent of tying them into a sack and throwing them off a cliff.

There is NO way to recover in the public eye from a rumor, even, of something that universally revilled.

 

[KriegHund]

There's also the fact that simply accusing someone of having viewed child porn, even just as RUMOR, is the smear tactic equivalent of tying them into a sack and throwing them off a cliff.

There is NO way to recover in the public eye from a rumor, even, of something that universally revilled.

Good point.

SALEM WITCH HUNT

Find no traces of child porn on computer? THEY MUST HAVE DELETED IT!
After all, they have normal porn! They must be a sick, sick, sick dog!

1950's RED SCARE

That man was talking about child porn yesterday! What, no evidence? Well heck, he has pictures of his daughter holding a pink M-16 on the internet! He must have deleted or hidden the real pictures!

To sacrfice the liberty of all for the persucution of a few is to sacrifice all libertys for the persucution of all.

 

[Old Dog]

Krieghund, why are you quoting my post? Please re-read it, in its entirety again. Apparently you, and at least one or two others, have confused my statements with those of someone who's indicated support for the feds going after internet search records. Speaking of records, for the record, here's what I said:

However, I applaud Google's stance (thus far) -- but, as a previous poster pointed out, there's probably more to it than what we know -- surely Google is protecting itself, and also as said, perhaps Google doesn't want some information about its own practices coming to light.

All I was asking was whether anyone on this forum was familiar with cases of sex offenders and child porn on the internet, while also relating a case that I was familiar with ...

The problem can be related to guns.

No, no it cannot. Child pornography is a crime in and of itself. Depictions of firearms on computers are perfectly legal. Relating one's legal interest in guns to one possibly being guilty of other crimes is not at all related to illegal computer activity. While government interest in one's private activities on the internet while in one's own home may be a conflict with our 4th Amendment rights, to attempt to draw links between this issue and gun issues at this point seems a bit of a stretch ...

 

[KriegHund]

Krieghund, why are you quoting my post? Please re-read it, in its entirety again. Apparently you, and at least one or two others, have confused my statements with those of someone who's indicated support for the feds going after internet search records. Speaking of records, for the record, here's what I said:

All I was asking was whether anyone on this forum was familiar with cases of sex offenders and child porn on the internet, while also relating a case that I was familiar with ...

No, no it cannot. Child pornography is a crime in and of itself. Depictions of firearms on computers are perfectly legal. Relating one's legal interest in guns to one possibly being guilty of other crimes is not at all related to illegal computer activity. While government interest in one's private activities on the internet while in one's own home may be a conflict with our 4th Amendment rights, to attempt to draw links between this issue and gun issues at this point seems a bit of a stretch ...

A) Because it seemed to be in support of tracking interenet activity. Looking back...not so much. My apologies.

B) I was not refering to the depiction of (images of) guns on the internet. I was stating that the attempt to attack the few guilty by sacrificing the rights of the innocent is a foolish endeavour. Just as gun owners have lost rights because a few people have been murdered with guns.

ill say again...

All people are monitered because of a few sick ****s just like all gun owners must be monitered because of a few physco killers.

 

[CAnnoneer]

All people are monitered because of a few sick ****s just like all gun owners must be monitered because of a few physco killers.

+1

Excellent summary of the issue.

 

[justashooter]

in some countries sex with children is not illegal. porn with children filmed there is not considered illegal in those countries. cultural schemas are variable.

i think the american statute does not consider it a violation of law to access a web page that contains child porn, unless you pay for it, and thereby take ownership.

it seems clear that saving child porn in any format actually brings it into the US, where it is subject to US laws, and posession is a felony.

searching for child porn with a net browser is a grey area, i suppose. does a web search for "children having sex images" actually involve intent to engage in criminal activity? not always.

if you are doing research on the question for whatever reason, i suppose it does not. if you are seeking sexual gratification, i suppose it does. criminal conviction usually depends on demonstrable intent, as well as incident. the keith richards incident is case in point.

in a recent THR thread involving 4 young people who kicked a man to death, it was noted that they were found guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder. it seems the jury did not believe they intended to kill the fellow, but that their deliberate malicious actions resulted in his death.

similarly, intent is an issue with child porn prosecution. the desire of the actor in the incident is key. proving such desire is the role of the prosecutor.

last year a sherrif in a pennsylvania town was found to have stored hundreds of CP images on his office computer. when it locked up, he took it to repair. the technician who repaired the machine tied the problem to the photos and reported the situation to a state authority.

the sherrif's defense? he claimed to be in posession of the images as an adjunct to research into the area. i never heard whether he was convicted, but do know that he resigned.

 

[rhubarb]

Google: Do no evil?

Via Drudge:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...24218238_RTRUKOC_0_US-GOOGLE-CHINA.xml&rpc=22

The new Chinese service at http://www.google.cn will offer a self-censored version of Google's popular search system that restricts access to thousands of terms and Web sites.

Hot topics might include issues like independence for Taiwan or Tibet or outlawed spiritual group Falun Gong.

Google is a business. Businesses do things that are good for business. Google Inc. doesn't give a rat's backside about your privacy. They are fighting the U.S. gummint's snooping to keep proprietary information secret. If it was in their business interest, they would turn you in in a minute.

 

[CAnnoneer]

No, no it cannot. Child pornography is a crime in and of itself. Depictions of firearms on computers are perfectly legal.

Maybe that is the kernel of our disagreement. I can't see why child porn should be illegal, anymore than I can see why some believe guns should be illegal. Statutory rape is and should be illegal, but if somebody tapes the criminal act, how is that any different from "Cops", "Craziest Police Videos", or the 8 o'clock news showing a police chase? In all cases, there is an ongoing crime that is being recorded. Statutory rape may be more disgusting than your average mugging, but ultimately, the act itself is criminal, rather than necessarily the taping.

From that perspective, if the accused has a bunch of security tapes depicting shop robberies, why slam him with more years when indicted for hitting a 7-11?

The whole point for a jury is to convict "beyond reasonable doubt". That is why indirect circumstantial evidence should hold little to no value for a truly objective jury.

 

[justashooter]

I can't see why child porn should be illegal

it has to do with the definition of "obscenity", which is established in accordance with cultural conception.

possession and marketing of obscenity is specifically prohibited by statute. this is mala prohibita, whereas the act itself is defined as mala en pro se. either way, it's illegal.

if you don't agree it should be, write your congressman.