I have to agree with this. No matter the defence you build a weapon exists to circumvent it.
Police set to step up hacking of home PCs
- Thread starter riddlermarc
- Start date
I have to agree with this. No matter the defence you build a weapon exists to circumvent it.
oh ffs I've read that, and I've got much worse than that on my HDD :/
(Béla the Vampire Girl for those who care/recognize it )
How the **** can you justify banning literature :/
foolproof
I'm throwing my hat in the ring for the opposition of the new extreme porn law.
The law was started after a mother of a girl who was in to 'Breath Play' was accidentally strangled to death by a man who happened to be into breath play all his life... and happened to look at that kind of porn (Although he had many breath play partners before and used to do it BEFORE the internet was around). Mrs Longhurst then went on a crusade to ban everything that's not missionary and despite some really stiff opposition in the Lords it's going to be law in 21 days time.
I would also like to point out the vague wording of the law (i.e threats to life) also includes someone who is wearing a gag and has their hands tied behind their back - now that isn't really violent, is it? Oh, and say there are 2 naked people in a picture, one has a plastic toy knife - that picture could get swallowed by this law.
Originally the law was meant to criminalise stuff that fell into the same box as the OPA (Obscene Publications Act) yet they decided in the Commons to change the definition to a more vague wording rather than just lifting the one from the OPA.
I have no issue with the sections in law that cover animals, corpses, mutilation n whatnot, but it's the vague wording that someone who likes looking at, say, spanking worried that their front door will get kicked in. The big worry is not that people will get locked up, but lives will be potentially ruined as word will spread through friends, family, neighbours etc that your door was kicked in and computers taken cause of porn even if you aren't formally charged.
The Register covers it really well if people are interested (links are safe)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/09/extreme_images_police_confused/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/28/extreme_images/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/pr0n_ban_date/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/bondage_protest/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/09/policing_internet_one/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/03/extreme_smut_possession_criminalised/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/03/comments/
Oh, and to those narrow minded people that say people that engage or enjoy consensual BDSM need to wake up, they are *not* deranged, sick, weird or any other daily mail esque words you might want to label them with. The fact people might like this kind of stuff and look at this kind of porn also does *not* mean that they are going to grab the first person in the street and sexually assault them, mkay?
The law was started after a mother of a girl who was in to 'Breath Play' was accidentally strangled to death by a man who happened to be into breath play all his life... and happened to look at that kind of porn (Although he had many breath play partners before and used to do it BEFORE the internet was around). Mrs Longhurst then went on a crusade to ban everything that's not missionary and despite some really stiff opposition in the Lords it's going to be law in 21 days time.
I would also like to point out the vague wording of the law (i.e threats to life) also includes someone who is wearing a gag and has their hands tied behind their back - now that isn't really violent, is it? Oh, and say there are 2 naked people in a picture, one has a plastic toy knife - that picture could get swallowed by this law.
Originally the law was meant to criminalise stuff that fell into the same box as the OPA (Obscene Publications Act) yet they decided in the Commons to change the definition to a more vague wording rather than just lifting the one from the OPA.
I have no issue with the sections in law that cover animals, corpses, mutilation n whatnot, but it's the vague wording that someone who likes looking at, say, spanking worried that their front door will get kicked in. The big worry is not that people will get locked up, but lives will be potentially ruined as word will spread through friends, family, neighbours etc that your door was kicked in and computers taken cause of porn even if you aren't formally charged.
The Register covers it really well if people are interested (links are safe)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/09/extreme_images_police_confused/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/28/extreme_images/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/pr0n_ban_date/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/22/bondage_protest/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/09/policing_internet_one/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/03/extreme_smut_possession_criminalised/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/03/comments/
Oh, and to those narrow minded people that say people that engage or enjoy consensual BDSM need to wake up, they are *not* deranged, sick, weird or any other daily mail esque words you might want to label them with. The fact people might like this kind of stuff and look at this kind of porn also does *not* mean that they are going to grab the first person in the street and sexually assault them, mkay?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,378
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
I read a later news report saying it wasn't. It seems hard to get to the truth about it, as the only things that make big news are things that editors think will sell. "OMG rape on YouTube!" sells. "No, it wasn't, we were misinformed" doesn't.
And there you have my point.
You are making nasty things up and attributing them to me - that's the slanderous ad hominem I was referring to.
So why do you object when I pretend to do the same thing to you? The difference is that I clearly stated I wasn't actually doing it, that I was just giving an example.
It's impossible with a system connected to the outside world. It can be made extremely difficult to break in, but not impossible. It might be impossible in practice, though, if it's made difficult enough.
Except of course the author says how it wasn't about censorship but about Tv
First BDSM gets blamed, now transvestitism!
Funnily enough the much hated hdcp stops you from doing it with lcd monitors because the primary source of these EM leaks are from the video cables and interfaces so by encrypting the connection it becomes impossible to decode the signal.
Though it is quite possible to read text from laptop monitors from some distance due to the inferior interface they use.
The snooping is easily countered though by shielding the cable or scrambling the signal.
Makes for very interesting reading.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf
Last edited:
nope.. thats why i wrote may.
i wouldnt leave that on just as i wouldnt leave 'allow remote access enabled'...its just asking for trouble and not really needed for most home users.
Last edited:
The internet watch foundation remind me of the tetragrammaton, "this content has been rated EC-10, condemned".
