Porn, passwords and rights in the Internet age

[brianeyci]

Excuse me, but when millions of people play video games and do not go on killing sprees but more than half of people watching child pornography are child abusers, the evidence is on my side. For one thing, the "media effects model" does not involve masturbation.

Certain people should not be exposed to certain things. That you deny this is like denying that hate speech can incite hate crimes . It's entirely possible for media to incite people, and the only question is magnitude.

[Keevan_Colton]

Excuse me, but when millions of people play video games and do not go on killing sprees but more than half of people watching child pornography are child abusers, the evidence is on my side. For one thing, the "media effects model" does not involve masturbation.

Certain people should not be exposed to certain things. That you deny this is like denying that hate speech can incite hate crimes . It's entirely possible for media to incite people, and the only question is magnitude.

Have you actually looked into the media effects model? Essentially it boils down to a long winded recitation of the phrase "Monkey See, Monkey Do". The actual studies done never employ a decent methodology, and certainly lack any kind of control.

It's Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc...correlation alone does not equal causation. Unless of course you can cite a particular study that didnt have a methodology that is worthy of a drunken highschooler.

[brianeyci]

Nice little catch phrase. All of psychology and psychological studies in general have a very questionable methodology. Correlation does not equal causation, but when the fucking assholes themselves with their faces blurred explained the steps they took before becoming child rapists with ever increasing child porn, and cops say half of child porn collectors abuse a child, it is no longer a flow chart in a textbook. This is a real situation, with real consequences if you're wrong. Medical science often conducts studies where they see whether one drug does this or that, and I suppose you would walk up to a doctor with your little catchphrase "correlation does not equal causation" and rebuttal their whole study eh? You have to use your brain rather than rely on catch phrases. The declining number of pirates has nothing to do with peak oil, but child porn is erotic pictures of a child. Gee, how could that incite child abusers? .

Are you going to refute my example that hate speech can incite hate crimes? Or continue to bring up "media effects model" without explaining it, which by the way is your job to explain, not mine to know.

It shows me that you have very little understanding of how child pornography actually works. Viewing child pornography is instrinsically linked to child abuse, not just because it's a picture of abuse of a child. Child porn collectors go into chat rooms, newsgroups, underground message boards, and begin their collection jerking off to pictures. But the problem is in their society, new material is like gold. So eventually they collect millions of pictures, burn hundreds of CDs, but their online pals want new stuff, more stuff, fresh stuff. Eventually they abuse a child.

[Keevan_Colton]

Nice little catch phrase. All of psychology and psychological studies in general have a very questionable methodology. Correlation does not equal causation, but when the fucking assholes themselves with their faces blurred explained the steps they took before becoming child rapists with ever increasing child porn, and cops say half of child porn collectors abuse a child, it is no longer a flow chart in a textbook.

How many rapists say the same thing about regualar porn?

This is a real situation, with real consequences if you're wrong.

Again, the same thing is trotted out for regular porn...and for video games...and for fucking rock and roll music.

Medical science often conducts studies where they see whether one drug does this or that, and I suppose you would walk up to a doctor with your little catchphrase "correlation does not equal causation" and rebuttal their whole study eh?

Nope, because they at least attempt to be scientific and conduct the studies in a controlled and double blind manner. Do I need to explain what that means to you?

You have to use your brain rather than rely on catch phrases. The declining number of pirates has nothing to do with peak oil, but child porn is erotic pictures of a child. Gee, how could that incite child abusers? .

A happens before B
A therefore causes B

The trouble is that you're assigning causation to something which is really just in the realm of correlation. Of course those with an interest in something, will seek something out, but that is not the initial source of their interest.

Are you going to refute my example that hate speech can incite hate crimes? Or continue to bring up "media effects model" without explaining it, which by the way is your job to explain, not mine to know.

If I tell you to go outside and punch the first person you see in the face. Will you?

It shows me that you have very little understanding of how child pornography actually works.

And I suppose you've got some sort of expert knowledge on the subject?
Speaking from experience?

Viewing child pornography is instrinsically linked to child abuse, not just because it's a picture of abuse of a child. Child porn collectors go into chat rooms, newsgroups, underground message boards, and begin their collection jerking off to pictures. But the problem is in their society, new material is like gold. So eventually they collect millions of pictures, burn hundreds of CDs, but their online pals want new stuff, more stuff, fresh stuff. Eventually they abuse a child.

You make this sound like some kind of inevitable chain of events. That's your problem, exposure to something does automatically make someone do something. By that logic, since the police officers, customs folk etc, that search for these things would also inevitably abuse a child...

[Jadeite]

I can only conclude that you didn't read my post at all, and decided to knee jerk like a sanctimonious ass. Animated child pornography, virtual child pornography is dangerous dumbfuck; cops say so, child abusers say so. I believe even psychologists say so.

Because we all know the police are trustworthy and credible.

Other than that, no problem with your post.

[brianeyci]

Nice little catch phrase. All of psychology and psychological studies in general have a very questionable methodology. Correlation does not equal causation, but when the fucking assholes themselves with their faces blurred explained the steps they took before becoming child rapists with ever increasing child porn, and cops say half of child porn collectors abuse a child, it is no longer a flow chart in a textbook.

How many rapists say the same thing about regualar porn?

This is a real situation, with real consequences if you're wrong.

Again, the same thing is trotted out for regular porn...and for video games...and for fucking rock and roll music.

Who the fuck cares? Magnitude matters dumbfuck. What part of that don't you accept? If 0.000000000001% of people who watch normal pornography go out and rape and 50% of people who watch child pornography go out and rape a child -- not to mention I already addressed the argument: you can fuck a woman without raping but fucking a child is always rape. What part of that don't you accept dipshit? I grow tired of repeating myself, three times now.

Medical science often conducts studies where they see whether one drug does this or that, and I suppose you would walk up to a doctor with your little catchphrase "correlation does not equal causation" and rebuttal their whole study eh?

Nope, because they at least attempt to be scientific and conduct the studies in a controlled and double blind manner. Do I need to explain what that means to you?

Wrong fucknugget. In order to conduct a test to meet your standard you'd have to create child abusers. That is so fucking wrong that you are demanding an unreasonable standard of evidence. This should be obvious, but you don't accept that. By the way, you can create a double blind test with pirates and graphs too. Double blind tests can be wrong, depending on the underlying assumptions. My assumptions are backed by empirical evidence and expert opinion of people who deal with child pornographers and people who are child pornographers, and yours is what? Your own catch phrase? Fuck you!

A happens before B
A therefore causes B

The trouble is that you're assigning causation to something which is really just in the realm of correlation. Of course those with an interest in something, will seek something out, but that is not the initial source of their interest.

That's a strawman. I already explained the mechanism by which their urge to rape children increases: masturbation. It's not simply the fact that they view it or that it happens before, but the fact that they jerk off to the pictures and continue to do that.

Are you going to refute my example that hate speech can incite hate crimes? Or continue to bring up "media effects model" without explaining it, which by the way is your job to explain, not mine to know.

If I tell you to go outside and punch the first person you see in the face. Will you?

Who the fuck cares? I already have a pre-existing bias against punching people randomly in the face dickhole. I already mentioned that the person needs to be inclined towards children for it to work.

It shows me that you have very little understanding of how child pornography actually works.

And I suppose you've got some sort of expert knowledge on the subject?
Speaking from experience?

You're a fucking piece of shit. So insinuate that I'm a child pornographer or child abuser now, do you? Maybe you'll insinuate that people who know things about how murders work are murderers. Before I thought you were just a knee-jerking ass but that crossed the line retard.

Viewing child pornography is instrinsically linked to child abuse, not just because it's a picture of abuse of a child. Child porn collectors go into chat rooms, newsgroups, underground message boards, and begin their collection jerking off to pictures. But the problem is in their society, new material is like gold. So eventually they collect millions of pictures, burn hundreds of CDs, but their online pals want new stuff, more stuff, fresh stuff. Eventually they abuse a child.

You make this sound like some kind of inevitable chain of events. That's your problem, exposure to something does automatically make someone do something. By that logic, since the police officers, customs folk etc, that search for these things would also inevitably abuse a child...

It is a chain fucking retard. You have to be inclined towards children to start out with for it to work, so police officers who are straight and wired to fuck adult women would not have the same reaction and do not jerk off to it. It does not have to be fucking inevitable for society to ban animated child porn or child porn -- 50% is too much, 20% is too much. Too bad you're too dumb to accept that.

This borders on child porn apologism.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: That punch people in the face example is pretty fucking stupid. Yes, you can tell people to punch others in the face enough and they will do it -- it's called a hate crime, and you got to do it a lot and more than once and be charismatic. Go out on the pulpit and say enough disparaging shit about Jews and Blacks and you can incite people to punch others in the face. These poeple are inclined to hate Blacks and Jews already and wouldn't have been incited to commit a crime otherwise but would have been content to say bad words and seethe.

That Keevan ignores magnitude of exposure and reduces it to a single instance of a single utterance is pretty fucking retarded.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can only conclude that you didn't read my post at all, and decided to knee jerk like a sanctimonious ass. Animated child pornography, virtual child pornography is dangerous dumbfuck; cops say so, child abusers say so. I believe even psychologists say so.

Because we all know the police are trustworthy and credible.

Other than that, no problem with your post.

The same could be said about any expert witness.

[CmdrWilkens]

Forgive my Law and Order knowledge of the law; but wouldn't the fact that the boarder agent saw the child porn be enough probably cause for search warrents to the guys home?

I think if the prosecutors to try him, they're going to have more discovery than just the laptop to nail the sick fucker.

They should, though it seems like they can't find any or at least the report doesn't seem to mention any. The point of contention is obviously a very minor point in the case as they clearly have probable cause to search his house and all of his possesions. The problem is the minor point could have huge ramifications. Honestly if I was the prosecution I'd just stick with using the testimony of the two agents who saw the porn and whatever could be gleaned from searching the guys house and hope for a jury which buys the case. By opening up a huge deal with this segment of the case the prosecutor is leaving open a huge avenue for appeal either way.

[bilateralrope]

You know, I can imagine the officer on the stand, giving his testimony to the jury:

Prosecutor: "Did you see the child porn on the laptop?"
Officer: "Yes."
P: "Can you show it to us?"
O: "No."
P: "Why not?"
O: "The data are encrypted, and we don't have the encryption key."
P: "Who has the encryption key?"
O: "The defendant."
P: "Did you ask the defendant for the encryption key?"
O: "Yes. He declined to produce it."

Would a thinking juror actually not get that the laptop almost certainly contains something incriminating? I suppose the defence would argue that they're actually hiding something that has nothing to do with the case at hand.

There's a couple problems not the least of which is that the Defense counsel (if they were in any way competent) would object as soon as the last quesiton would be asked and there would never be a response entered onto the record. Moreover any judge worth his salt would clearly instruct the jury to ignore the casual connection. The end result is that evenif the jury provides a guilty verdict then it is almost a matter of certainty that it would be overturned on appeal. Now that's not an absolute and there certainly exists the possibility that it wouldn't go through but I rather expect not.

What objections could the defence raise ?
Why would the jury be instructed to ignore the connection ?

Would those still be valid objections if the defendant gets asked why he hasn't given them his encryption key ?

Anyway if the Prosecution can get a guilty verdict on the evidence of the two officers who witnessed the porn then it remains yet more proof that tampering with the 5th amendment serves no purpose other than to open the door to abuses of the system to incriminate and/or harm innocent persons. In all of this I don't like the idea of the guy getting away with shit but I'd rather keep an eye on him and nab him later rather than open the door to hundreds of innocent people being jailed for contempt charges.

What abuses are we talking about here ?

Remember that they can't do anything without having both the encryption key and the encrypted data. And I don't see how they could legally get hold of the data without a warrant.

[CmdrWilkens]

You know, I can imagine the officer on the stand, giving his testimony to the jury:

Prosecutor: "Did you see the child porn on the laptop?"
Officer: "Yes."
P: "Can you show it to us?"
O: "No."
P: "Why not?"
O: "The data are encrypted, and we don't have the encryption key."
P: "Who has the encryption key?"
O: "The defendant."
P: "Did you ask the defendant for the encryption key?"
O: "Yes. He declined to produce it."

Would a thinking juror actually not get that the laptop almost certainly contains something incriminating? I suppose the defence would argue that they're actually hiding something that has nothing to do with the case at hand.

There's a couple problems not the least of which is that the Defense counsel (if they were in any way competent) would object as soon as the last quesiton would be asked and there would never be a response entered onto the record. Moreover any judge worth his salt would clearly instruct the jury to ignore the casual connection. The end result is that evenif the jury provides a guilty verdict then it is almost a matter of certainty that it would be overturned on appeal. Now that's not an absolute and there certainly exists the possibility that it wouldn't go through but I rather expect not.

What objections could the defence raise ?
Why would the jury be instructed to ignore the connection ?

Well the first objection would be at the point of who has the key and the objection would be prejudicial and the judge would sustain, the officer would never answer the question. If that failed the next question would also be objected as prejudicial and would be struck down even if the first isn't.

Any competent attorney and halfway by the book judge would remind the jury that they are to judge based on the facts presented in the case alone. Given the facts stated it requires inference (and thus exceeds reasonable doubt) to conclude that there must be porn int he defendant's posession AND that it was of an illegal nature.

That is before you have the defendant get on the stand anyway, claim all the porn was of legal aged individuals, take the 5th for asking to prove, lawyer points out defendant doesn't have to prove his case and then you have reasonable doubt and the case disappears.

Would those still be valid objections if the defendant gets asked why he hasn't given them his encryption key ?

Defendant won't take the stand to answer those questions and can't be compelled. The right against self incrimination exists so there is no way in hell this question ever gets asked let alone answered. Asking it alone would be struck down as prejudicial in the unlikely event the defendant even takes the stand.

Anyway if the Prosecution can get a guilty verdict on the evidence of the two officers who witnessed the porn then it remains yet more proof that tampering with the 5th amendment serves no purpose other than to open the door to abuses of the system to incriminate and/or harm innocent persons. In all of this I don't like the idea of the guy getting away with shit but I'd rather keep an eye on him and nab him later rather than open the door to hundreds of innocent people being jailed for contempt charges.

What abuses are we talking about here ?

Did you read my point about jailing innocent individuals for contempt?

Remember that they can't do anything without having both the encryption key and the encrypted data. And I don't see how they could legally get hold of the data without a warrant.

Which changes nothing about how requiring someone to surrender information is a violation of the 5th amendment so 4th amendment arguments aren't the problem. Requiring folks to give up the content of their minds (the encryption key) leads to situations where the only recourse for both the guilty and innocent is refusal/denial which leads to contempt charges and jail time for the innocent (along with the guilty but its the innocent I'm concerned about).

Again this isn't about the 4th amendment. The government has the right, with a showing of probable cause, to search your possesions. It does not have the right, as protected by the 5th, to search the contents of you mind. The key code resides solely within this guys mind so it is beyond the reach of subpoena and, as a practical matter, even if it was within reach of subpoena it would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT. No one actually guilty of a crime will divulge information that will sentence them to a greater prison stay than a contempt charge and innocent persons required to comply will be occasionaly unable, or rightfully unwilling, to comply sentencing them to undeserved jail time.

[CmdrWilkens]

Clarification on the objections: the reason the quesitons would be struck down is that the officer in question is conveying as testimonial fact something which creates an impression of guilt without actually procing it. While the statement is factual both the context and the nature of a response dictate that there is an automatic assumption of guilt stemming from such questioning despite the factual validity of guilt being unaffected by the statement.

Moreover all of the questioing even assumes that a judge allows such testimony to begin with as a ruling on the key being protected likely would result in any testimony about the existence and possesion of the key being quashed.

[Wyrm]

Brian, CBC quotes, "44% of the people arrested in Toronto for possessing child pornography have also been charged with or convicted of sexually abusing children." There's a subtle statistical error here. Do you know what it is?

It's selection bias. What's the first thing you do when you arrest someone for sexually abusing children? You search their properties. In these searches, child pornography is found at some unspecified rate.

Now, what of the people actually possessing child porn but never committed sexual abuse on a child (or even thinking about it)? Without any serious crime to trigger a search warrant, the discovery rate is much lower. I wouldn't put any money at the discovery rate being even close to 1% of all people with child porn.

Thus, sexual abusers of children that have child porn are overrepresented in the sample. So instead of indicating how dangerous child porn is, it shows how weak the connection with pedophilia it is: in order to make up even 56% of the non-sexual abuse part of the "brought up on child porn" population they actually constitute, the pool of available child porn possessors who do not sexually abuse children must be enormous compared to the part that actually does abuse children sexually.

Sorry, Brian, but we need to know a LOT more about CBC's figure before you can cite it as evidence of harm.