Newsgroup moderator is not Glitter
savage
course of my 'duties' I *have* to download all the binary content from one
newsgroup, other members call me to investigate individual problem binaries
in the other group[s]. In order to obtain the headers, to lodge complaints
with the originating isp and to request closure of the offenders
account/websites etc, all too frequently I am obliged to download material
which it may be 'unlawful' to be in posession of in the UK. Even checking
the true location of a website which uses a semi anonymous redirect service
such as clickto / jumpto can 'contaminate' my system.
I have software which will remove the suspect binaries from my system and
overwrite the space they occupied, but occasionally, I miss one or two
images, which may then remain on my computer system until the following
session (usually daily), but I must admit that I have on more than one
occasion been very lax and left system cleansing until the following day.
Pornography in inappropriate newsgroups, and *any* child porn is something I
feel strongly about, but in light of recent events, I have some fears about
being tarred with the same brush as a certain singer, should it be deemed
that my pc system was worthy of inspection, especially when I had an active
night followed by a lazy day.
My track record and posting history should speak for themselves, but would
my 'work' be a valid defence if the 'worst' was to happen, given that the
police and the DPP are the most fickle of creatures and UK law can
be an ass ?
I really would like to see / join some serious 'knowlegable' discussion on
this topic, if it is appropriate for this group. Perhaps the 'right'
outcome would encourage others to take a more positive stand against this
kind of abuse.
savage
In2Home User
since the Act in question was never drafted with this sort of case in mind.
You might be able to say that you did not actually know the content ofthe
material, but I suspect that there will be cases where the headers are such
that you have reason to know, and that is enough for the criminal offence.
I am sorry to give such negative advice.
Andrew McGee
savage <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:6qe%3.1735$F7.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
Anna Zdanowska
where a member of staff at a university was charged with possessing indecent
images on his computer, which had been dowloaded off the internet. The
court held that the internet Service Provider was not liable for
transmitting the images as they were merely a common carrier of information,
and therefore the defendant was held liable. Therefore if the ISP cannot be
liable, the blame falls squarely on the person in possession of the
offending material.
-**** Posted from remarQ, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.remarq.com/ - Host to the the World's Discussions & Usenet
savage
Anna Zdanowska <azdan...@plym.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:PSz%3.1063$B5.499487@WReNphoon3...
> Having studied media law, I came across the case of R v Fellows, R v
Arnold,
> where a member of staff at a university was charged with possessing
indecent
> images on his computer, which had been dowloaded off the internet.
> The
> court held that the internet Service Provider was not liable for
> transmitting the images as they were merely a common carrier of
information,
> and therefore the defendant was held liable. Therefore if the ISP cannot
be
> liable, the blame falls squarely on the person in possession of the
> offending material.
>
>
>
Sorry, but I fail to see what this gem has to do with the question I asked.
I'm not an ISP, nor am I employed by one, (Jeez, I wish you lot would read
the bl@@dy question) but I'm pretty sure the 'rules' were changed following
a recent case / judgement involving Demon, and I didn't study law. You can
have that gem without charge.
Savage
--
you can run, but ....
savage
In2Home User <us...@freethought.in2home.co.uk> wrote in message
news:943613564.19516...@news.in2home.co.uk...
> I think the answer is that it's all a matter of prosecutorial discretion,
> since the Act in question was never drafted with this sort of case in
mind.
> You might be able to say that you did not actually know the content ofthe
> material, but I suspect that there will be cases where the headers are
such
> that you have reason to know, and that is enough for the criminal offence.
>
> I am sorry to give such negative advice.
>
> Andrew McGee
Andrew,
I'm sorry for the delay in thanking you for taking the time to consider my
question and respond to it logically.
Yours isn't a negative view at all, it's honest, and it confirms what I
suspected all along.
It doesn't really change anything. I'm still going to keep on doing what I
have been doing for the past [well, it's been a long time in various
guises]. I'm just going to be a little more discreet, and a lot more
religious about disinfecting my hard drive.
Well, this cover is blown. Time to fire up another. How does 'Hitman'
sound?
Thanks again
Savage
David Swarbrick
<azdan...@plym.ac.uk> wrote
>Having studied media law, I came across the case of R v Fellows, R v Arnold,
>where a member of staff at a university was charged with possessing indecent
>images on his computer, which had been dowloaded off the internet. The
>court held that the internet Service Provider was not liable for
>transmitting the images as they were merely a common carrier of information,
>and therefore the defendant was held liable. Therefore if the ISP cannot be
>liable, the blame falls squarely on the person in possession of the
>offending material.
>
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor 01484 722531 - da...@swarb.freeuk.com
www.swarb.co.uk - law-index of 10,200+ uk case summaries and uk.legalFQA
The Law Society regulates our investment business. IP / IT Law and Contracts.
savage <S>
David Swarbrick <da...@swarb.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:EhE0$ZADrt...@swarb.freeuk.com...
> In article <PSz%3.1063$B5.499487@WReNphoon3>, Anna Zdanowska
> <azdan...@plym.ac.uk> wrote
> >Having studied media law, I came across the case of R v Fellows, R v
Arnold,
> >where a member of staff at a university was charged with possessing
indecent
> >images on his computer, which had been dowloaded off the internet. The
> >court held that the internet Service Provider was not liable for
> >transmitting the images as they were merely a common carrier of
information,
> >and therefore the defendant was held liable. Therefore if the ISP cannot
be
> >liable, the blame falls squarely on the person in possession of the
> >offending material.
> >
> That is an entirely peculiar and unjustifiable reading of these cases.
>
Agreed. Perhaps Anna should read up on Godfrey v Demon Internet for a wider
view. ISP's *can* be held accountable for the content of the messages they
'innocently distribute'.
Well, it didn't take long to swing this thread off track. I recall the same
thing happening with Lee Traceys post on the same subject on 14/11/99 and
another question raised by Alexander Baron on the 15th was poo-poohed fairly
quickly. I suppose I should have expected no more, given the track records
of some posters here, but if anyone cares to read through it, I have left
some up-to-date information there.
With respect, may I suggest that it's time to stop playing 'ostrich' and
scoring points by sniping at your fellow group members, and take a few
moments to address the real issue. Child porn on the internet and within
usenet is on the increase, and if something isn't done about it, the
computer on your desk will soon be no more than an electronic typewriter.
All I ask is the freedom to find these people and do my bit to stop them,
without the threat of being treated as a pervert continually hanging over my
head. Surely that isn't too much to ask, is it?
Savage <S>
--
You can run, but ....
VM
savage <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:6qe%3.1735$F7.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> I help to moderate a couple of newsgroups on a voluntary basis. During
the
> course of my 'duties' I *have* to download all the binary content from one
email me. I'll give you details of a degaussing device which will totally
erase a hard drive [any size] in under 10 seconds. It's a modified version
of a TV tube degausser which I devised for rapid bulk erasing of camcorder
cassettes. I defy anyone to snoop in your hard drive after you fire that
thing up
It seems to me that you guys [and Ladygold <g> ] deserve all the help they
can get
VM /G6XCD (not QTHR)
Simon Palmer
savage <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> a écrit dans le message :
1lK%3.469$4a5....@nnrp4.clara.net...
<snip>
> It doesn't really change anything. I'm still going to keep on doing what
I
> have been doing for the past [well, it's been a long time in various
> guises]. I'm just going to be a little more discreet, and a lot more
> religious about disinfecting my hard drive.
To put the legal aspects aside for a minute and look at this from a more
practical angle, have you considered 'moving' your 'Temporary Internet
Files' to a separate hard drive which you could then completely reformat at
the end of each session?
AIUI simply deleting files is not as effective - remember the old 'undelete'
command?...
If your computer was 'inspected' I don't think that you could rely on your
postition as a moderator as a convincing defence for any potentialyl illegal
material that might be found. How many people are actually going to
understand what it is that you do? AIUI moderator's are self-appointed, so
IMO John (or Jane) Smith will just consider it a cover for 'seedy
activities'. A stupid analogy follows, but I'm sure you'll get the point: if
you said you were buying up lots of drugs in order to make them unavailable
to other innocent people, do you think anyone would believe it?
A few weeks ago Mrs Justice Arden wrote an article about internet porn et
al. in the New Law Journal, in which she conluded that "that the general
rule in civil law should be that the same principles apply whatever the
medium and in criminal law that whatever is illegal offline should be
illegal online." As you say, the law agencies can be pretty stubborn, so
IMHO they will see it as if you're in possession you're in possession, no
matter what the reason.
You were fairly dismissive of the post referrering to Fellows v. Arnold, but
if you were to read the following, you might see the relevance (esp. the
start and end):
" Held: (1) Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.84 (3)(b)
the expanded definition of a "photograph" now includes "data stored on a
computer disc or by other electronic means which is capable of conversion
into a photograph". In the court's judgment, reasoning in Attorney General's
Reference (No.5 of 1980) summarised below was entirely appropriate to the
present case. The 1959 Act had to be interpreted as it was understood by "
ordinary literate persons" when it was passed, and the data stored in the
disc was "shown played or projected" to those who gained access to the
archive (database) by means which, though not available in 1959,
nevertheless can be regarded as within the ordinary meaning of those words.
Appeal dismissed. In regard to the first appellant's appeal against
sentence, it was submitted that the sentence imposed was appropriate to a
commercial pornographer but not to a computer enthusiast who electronically
swapped material with like-minded people. The Court did not agree. There was
enormous public disquiet at the potential which the Internet offers for the
international transmission of pornography, in particular for those with
perverted tastes including collecting and viewing indecent photographs of
children. A heavy deterrent sentence must be imposed. Thus the appeal
against the sentence dismissed. "
R v ALBAN FELLOWS : R v STEVEN ARNOLD (1997)
FWIW, the following is quoted from Policing cyberspace, Can the rules and
regulations of the 'real' world be applied to activity on the Internet? Dr
Satvinder Juss confronts the challenges of pornography on the Web. The
Lawyer 09/12/97
" Last summer, the US Supreme Court made the first effort to extend the free
speech principles of the First Amendment to cyberspace. It overturned the
Clinton adminis-tration's Federal Communications Decency Act, which made it
a crime to use a computer to transmit indecent material to someone under 18
or to display such material "in a manner available" to a person under 18.
The indecent material was not precisely defined, being referred to as "
patently offensive" descriptions or images of "sexual or excretory
activities" . Violations of the Act carried penalties of two years in prison
and a $250, 000 fine.
A coalition of Internet users, computer industry groups and civil liberties
organisations challenged the Act. The US Chamber of Commerce entered the
case in the final stages to argue that the law presented a threat to the
country's ability to compete globally in an age of new communications.
In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens held that speech on
the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection,
given to books and newspapers. He described the Internet as the "town crier"
of the modern age, expanding the reach of the soapbox orator and the
electronic pamphleteer."
You might consider that to be veering OT again, but I believe that our
embryonic internet will take many leads from the US.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what would happen if an employee has to view a
site carrying illegal material, which was then downloaded into the company's
own net cache, but deleted from the individual employee's computer [and/or
account]. What do Godfrey and the German Compuserve rulings suggest on
this - could the company be prosecuted? What if the employee was on a break?
Could the company take action for, say, abuse of facilities or even theft
(the 'phone charges)?!
I hope some of this was of interest to you,
regards,
Simon
savage <S>
Simon Palmer <s...@NOSPAMstyle-pr.com> wrote in message
news:81rild$4o2$1...@bignews.shef.ac.uk...
>
> savage <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> a écrit dans le message :
> 1lK%3.469$4a5....@nnrp4.clara.net...
>
> <snip>
>
> > It doesn't really change anything. I'm still going to keep on doing
what
> I
> > have been doing for the past [well, it's been a long time in various
> > guises]. I'm just going to be a little more discreet, and a lot more
> > religious about disinfecting my hard drive.
>
> To put the legal aspects aside for a minute and look at this from a more
> practical angle, have you considered 'moving' your 'Temporary Internet
> Files' to a separate hard drive which you could then completely reformat
at
> the end of each session?
> AIUI simply deleting files is not as effective - remember the old
'undelete'
> command?...
>
I have 1x9 Gb and 1x20Gb HD to contend with. Imagine formatting those and
reinstalling everything every day. There are always files and binaries I
need to keep as evidence, but I normally send those somewhere into
cyberspace for safekeeping until they are needed. Needless to say, they
would be very difficult to link directly to me.
> If your computer was 'inspected' I don't think that you could rely on your
> postition as a moderator as a convincing defence for any potentialyl
illegal
> material that might be found. How many people are actually going to
> understand what it is that you do? AIUI moderator's are self-appointed, so
> IMO John (or Jane) Smith will just consider it a cover for 'seedy
> activities'. A stupid analogy follows, but I'm sure you'll get the point:
if
> you said you were buying up lots of drugs in order to make them
unavailable
> to other innocent people, do you think anyone would believe it?
I understand, I just don't see why anyone with a provable track record
should not be granted dispensation to do what the police are neither
equipped nor qualified to do. I may be mistaken, but I assumed that at
least some of the lawyers, barristers, magistrates and others who post here
would be conversant enough with computers and usenet / internet and British
/English law to offer some constructive suggestions, or even be qualified
enough to organise a defence, should the worst happen. Now it looks as
though I'll have to rely on an 'expert witness'.
>
> A few weeks ago Mrs Justice Arden wrote an article about internet porn et
> al. in the New Law Journal, in which she conluded that "that the general
> rule in civil law should be that the same principles apply whatever the
> medium and in criminal law that whatever is illegal offline should be
> illegal online." As you say, the law agencies can be pretty stubborn, so
> IMHO they will see it as if you're in possession you're in possession, no
> matter what the reason.
It's about time that the Govt took informed advice before making laws. I
usually pay a local schoolkid a fiver to sort my pc out when it trashes.
Maybe I should pass his name along to Messers Blair and Straw
>
> You were fairly dismissive of the post referrering to Fellows v. Arnold,
but
> if you were to read the following, you might see the relevance (esp. the
> start and end):
I wasn't dismissive of the reference, someone else was. It meant absolutely
nothing to me, except that it appeared to be about an isp rather than about
the activiries of an individual. I don't have access to, or don't know
where to look for the information, - apart from Halsburys and Stones, but
the writing is too small - I didn't see how it affected me, and I
challenged that part of the statement that an ISP cannot be held
accountable. Demon Internet was recently judged to be accountable for
information which was held on their servers, and thousands of others are
pretty quick to cancel postings which I and my colleagues warn them about.
<Snipped, but saved and printed for future reference and digestion>
>
> FWIW, the following is quoted from Policing cyberspace, Can the rules and
> regulations of the 'real' world be applied to activity on the Internet? Dr
> Satvinder Juss confronts the challenges of pornography on the Web. The
> Lawyer 09/12/97
>
<snip the FCDA>
>
> In the Supreme Court ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens held that speech on
> the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment
protection,
> given to books and newspapers. He described the Internet as the "town
crier"
> of the modern age, expanding the reach of the soapbox orator and the
> electronic pamphleteer."
>
> You might consider that to be veering OT again, but I believe that our
> embryonic internet will take many leads from the US.
Not at all, but I believe the explanation falls short.
The First and Fourth Amendments allows freedom of speech (including
publication) EXCEPT where that right is used in furtherance or incitement of
an illegal act (or words to that effect). Publishing pornography (in broad
terms) is an illegal act, so cannot be covered by the First and Fourth....
My quote is also incomplete, and I am bound to be corrected by American
nationals who read here, but I'm sure you get the idea.
By the same token, I believe there still exists a law which allows cyclists
to carry a hand gun to shoot dogs which 'snap at the heels of said
cyclists', but as posession of a handgun is now illegal, dogs are free to
harass cyclists again. (I refer of course to UK laws)
>
> Anyway, I'm curious as to what would happen if an employee has to view a
> site carrying illegal material, which was then downloaded into the
company's
> own net cache, but deleted from the individual employee's computer [and/or
> account]. What do Godfrey and the German Compuserve rulings suggest on
> this - could the company be prosecuted? What if the employee was on a
break?
> Could the company take action for, say, abuse of facilities or even theft
> (the 'phone charges)?!
>
If you are asking me, then ignoring the *has to* or assuming you meant *was
to*, I suggest the onus would be on the prosecution to prove *which*
individual downloaded the material. If all were of previous good character,
and there was no confession or witnesses, then there would always be
'reasonable doubt', unless other circumstances prevailed at the time, and
which were acceptable as irrefutable proof that one individual was
responsible (such as the 'porn' being downloaded at two in the morning when
only the night security officer had access to the building and computers)
What if the employee was away fron his / her keyboard on a short bathroom
break, and a colleague seeking rapid promotion downloaded the offending
material via the absentees terminal in the operators absence, but did *not*
delete it from the persons computer? The employee would have no defence,
yet is completely innocent of any offence. Is that the perfect cyber
crime? How many of you protect your pc with a password or keyboard lock
when you nip out to the bathrrom, or pop out for a crafty smoke???
Read Lee Traceys theory on the same subject, posted here on 14/11/99. He
took this scenario a stage further, and the reality is quite frightening in
its' simplicity and efficiency. Anyone who has computer literate enemies
should *really* take notice
The Godfrey v Demon case was about the innocent distribution of a libellous
statement. As I understand the case (from a PC mag) it hinged on the fact
that Demon was told about the posting and refused to cancel the message,
thus continuing to distribute - obviously less innocently.
>
> I hope some of this was of interest to you,
Immensely, thank you for taking the time to dig it out. I hope you find
some food for thought in my 'logic'
Savage <S>
Not quite the uneducated savage that people assume me to be
>
> regards,
> Simon
>
>
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>I help to moderate a couple of newsgroups on a voluntary basis. During the
>course of my 'duties' I *have* to download all the binary content from one
>in the other group[s]. In order to obtain the headers, to lodge complaints
>with the originating isp and to request closure of the offenders
>account/websites etc, all too frequently I am obliged to download material
>which it may be 'unlawful' to be in posession of in the UK.
I am not at all clear what you mean by this. Do you mean that you are
hunting for child pornography, or do you mean that you are being sent
mostly legitimate material that occasionally has child porn mixed in
with it ?
>I have some fears about
>being tarred with the same brush as a certain singer, should it be deemed
>that my pc system was worthy of inspection, especially when I had an active
>night followed by a lazy day.
>
>My track record and posting history should speak for themselves, but would
>my 'work' be a valid defence if the 'worst' was to happen, given that the
>police and the DPP are the most fickle of creatures and UK law can
>be an ass ?
I am very unclear what your "work" is, which makes it hard to answer.
There is a defence to a possession charge of "did not ask for the
material and destroyed it as soon as he became aware of it". If you can
show that you aren't soliciting this material and have good practice to
deal with it when it arrives, you would probably be okay (contrary to
the beliefs I see here, there are policemen who understand these
issues).
If, on the other hand, you are setting yourself up as a vigilante who
deliberately seeks the material out, you are putting yourself in a
*very* risky position. If others are sending you the material to
"assess", you are both at risk. They are far better passing it to the
Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk), who can deal with
relevant law enforcement authorities.
If you come somewhere between these two, you perhaps need to talk to
your local police force *before* finding yourself in trouble. If you
wish to email me in confidence, I may be able to assist further.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Clive D.W. Feather
writes
>but I'm pretty sure the 'rules' were changed following
>a recent case / judgement involving Demon, and I didn't study law. You can
>have that gem without charge.
(1) That case hasn't come to trial yet.
(2) It hinges on peculiarities of defamation law, while your situation
hinges on peculiarities of certain other laws.
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>I understand, I just don't see why anyone with a provable track record
>should not be granted dispensation to do what the police are neither
>equipped nor qualified to do.
Since it's unclear what you are actually doing that needs
"dispensation", I can't answer that further. But my initial question
would be to ask why you consider vigilantism is acceptable ?
>It's about time that the Govt took informed advice before making laws.
Curiously, they quite often do (not always, I'll accept). Do you have a
specific law that you think is being misapplied to the Internet ?
>and thousands of others are
>pretty quick to cancel postings which I and my colleagues warn them about.
And what exactly does this mean ?
>The First and Fourth Amendments allows freedom of speech (including
>publication) EXCEPT where that right is used in furtherance or incitement of
>an illegal act (or words to that effect).
I don't recall any such words in either amendment.
>Publishing pornography (in broad
>terms) is an illegal act, so cannot be covered by the First and Fourth....
This is a circular, and thus invalid, argument.
savage <S>
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:z646m+Ij$BR4...@romana.davros.org...
> In article <ELD%3.242$4a5....@nnrp4.clara.net>, savage <gunsmith@?.com>
> writes
> >but I'm pretty sure the 'rules' were changed following
> >a recent case / judgement involving Demon, and I didn't study law. You
can
> >have that gem without charge.
>
> (1) That case hasn't come to trial yet.
Details of the judgement I was referring to (L Godfrey v Demon Internet)
were published in my computer mag on July 15th 1999
>
> (2) It hinges on peculiarities of defamation law, while your situation
> hinges on peculiarities of certain other laws.
>
Which is what I said several days ago.
A valliant effort Sir. One Bullseye, one near miss
But at least you tried, and gave an honest opinion, for which I thank you
most sincerely
Savage <S>
Simon Palmer
savage <S> <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> a écrit dans le message :
p_p04.1232$VO.4...@nnrp3.clara.net...
<Occasional snipping here and there. Please excuse :) >
> The software I use is much faster and much more absolute than a format,
but
> I have 1x9 Gb and 1x20Gb HD to contend with. Imagine formatting those and
> reinstalling everything every day.
Sorry, I don't think you understand what I meant. If you just set it up so
that all you temporary internet files are stored on one, otherwise blank
hard drive, you can just reformat that every day without needing to install
anything. You could pick up a small (around 200Mb) drive for this purpose
quite cheaply.
> I understand, I just don't see why anyone with a provable track record
> should not be granted dispensation to do what the police are neither
> equipped nor qualified to do.
Hmm. I might not agree with the tone of his message, but Clive Feather makes
a valid point that you appear to be suggesting vigilantes are OK... ?
> It's about time that the Govt took informed advice before making laws. I
> usually pay a local schoolkid a fiver to sort my pc out when it trashes.
> Maybe I should pass his name along to Messers Blair and Straw
AIUI it takes many years for the Govt. to act on the Law Society's
recommendations, so I wouldn't expect them to listen to too many computer
experts. BTW, there was an excellent letter in Internet Magazine last month
about cryptography and the proposed legislation. I'll try and find it
sometime if no-one saw it.
Incidentally, if the schoolkid fixes your computer and comes across a lot of
'illegal material' what do you think he tells his mates
(which then gets back to parents, teachers, the school, the neighbourhood
etc)?
> > You were fairly dismissive of the post referrering to Fellows v. Arnold,
> but
> > if you were to read the following, you might see the relevance (esp. the
> > start and end):
>
> I wasn't dismissive of the reference, someone else was.
Fair enough. Sorry.
> > You might consider that to be veering OT again, but I believe that our
> > embryonic internet will take many leads from the US.
I don't know much about US legislation, but I just wanted to point out that
the above sentence should have read "...our embryonic internet legislation
will take many leads..."
> > Anyway, I'm curious as to what would happen if an employee has to view a
> > site carrying illegal material, which was then downloaded into the
> company's
> > own net cache, but deleted from the individual employee's computer
[and/or
> > account]. What do Godfrey and the German Compuserve rulings suggest on
> > this - could the company be prosecuted? What if the employee was on a
> break?
> > Could the company take action for, say, abuse of facilities or even
theft
> > (the 'phone charges)?!
> >
>
> If you are asking me, then ignoring the *has to* or assuming you meant
*was
> to*,
I meant "was". Good typo that one, eh? ;-)
> I suggest the onus would be on the prosecution to prove *which*
> individual downloaded the material. If all were of previous good
character,
> and there was no confession or witnesses, then there would always be
> 'reasonable doubt', unless other circumstances prevailed at the time, and
> which were acceptable as irrefutable proof that one individual was
> responsible (such as the 'porn' being downloaded at two in the morning
when
> only the night security officer had access to the building and computers)
Reasonable enough. Yet if the stuff was held in a network cache, could that
be seen as means of distribution?
> Read Lee Traceys theory on the same subject, posted here on 14/11/99. He
> took this scenario a stage further, and the reality is quite frightening
in
> its' simplicity and efficiency. Anyone who has computer literate enemies
> should *really* take notice
The message was deleted from my server before I got to it, but I have read
stuff on a similar theme.
> The Godfrey v Demon case was about the innocent distribution of a
libellous
> statement. As I understand the case (from a PC mag) it hinged on the fact
> that Demon was told about the posting and refused to cancel the message,
> thus continuing to distribute - obviously less innocently.
You can read most of the cases here if you wish:
URL: http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/qbdind.htm
> > I hope some of this was of interest to you,
>
> Immensely, thank you for taking the time to dig it out. I hope you find
> some food for thought in my 'logic'
Indeed.
regards,
Simon
Simon Palmer
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message
: z646m+Ij$BR4...@romana.davros.org...
> In article <ELD%3.242$4a5....@nnrp4.clara.net>, savage <gunsmith@?.com>
> writes
> >but I'm pretty sure the 'rules' were changed following
> >a recent case / judgement involving Demon, and I didn't study law. You
can
> >have that gem without charge.
>
> (1) That case hasn't come to trial yet.
There are two judgments for the Godfrey case here:
URL: http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/qbdind.htm
regards,
Simon
savage <S>
exactly what you are......
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:S5kCmJJT...@romana.davros.org...
> In article <p_p04.1232$VO.4...@nnrp3.clara.net>, savage <S>
> <gunsmith@@Freeuk.com> writes
Please don't amend or delete my email address. Ta.
> >I understand, I just don't see why anyone with a provable track record
> >should not be granted dispensation to do what the police are neither
> >equipped nor qualified to do.
>
> Since it's unclear what you are actually doing that needs
> "dispensation", I can't answer that further.
To whom is it unclear? I believe my initial statement was clearly written
and it was written in such a way that anyone with a basic grasp of English
could understand it. I'm a newsgroup moderator, spam fighter, and given
the chance, I'll track down anyone who posts or purveys child pornography
through the internet or usenet. Is it clear enough now?
> But my initial question
> would be to ask why you consider vigilantism is acceptable ?
Why Sir do you hint that it is not?
>
> >It's about time that the Govt took informed advice before making laws.
>
> Curiously, they quite often do (not always, I'll accept). Do you have a
> specific law that you think is being misapplied to the Internet ?
Law isn't my field, but I notice how many of the regulars here keep saying
"this law is wrong" and "that law should be changed........", so I believe I
made a valid, if uninformed point.
Misapplied? I'm not qualified to say, but I believe that more can be done,
much more quickly and with far less pedantry, even if it's only a simple law
saying "Thou shalt not spam", and "Thou shalt not post child (or underage)
porn across boundaries where said porn is illegal", but of course, that's a
totally idealistic view...
>
> >and thousands of others are
> >pretty quick to cancel postings which I and my colleagues warn them
about.
>
> And what exactly does this mean ?
Exactly what it says. Your sig says that you're an internet expert; so why
ask?
------------text separator-------------
copy and paste quote
> Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
------------text separator-------------
>
> >The First and Fourth Amendments allows freedom of speech (including
> >publication) EXCEPT where that right is used in furtherance or incitement
of
> >an illegal act (or words to that effect).
>
> I don't recall any such words in either amendment.
That, Sir, is a cheap way to try to discredit me, and this is the second
time you tried that within these threads, but your whole post is a farce.
Here is a much better way to discredit someone;
Do you recall typing this?
------------text separator-------------
> (1) That case hasn't come to trial yet.
>
and here's my reply;
Details of the judgement I was referring to (L Godfrey v Demon Internet)
were published in my computer mag on July 15th 1999.
------------text separator-------------
I will be happy to scan the page in question and email it to you upon
request. Now would you be so kind as to allow me the same right that any
defendant should have in this country. The onus is not on me to prove that
I was right, but yours to prove that I was wrong. The floor is yours, and
the world waits with bated breath, as do several dozen of my fellows, some
of whom are expressing more than a passing interest in this thread.
>
> >Publishing pornography (in broad
> >terms) is an illegal act, so cannot be covered by the First and
Fourth....
>
> This is a circular, and thus invalid, argument.
Twaddle. Read your household insurance policy. Parts about War, civil
disobedience and Acts of God spring immediately to mind.
Next !?!?
Savage <S>
>
> --
> Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
> Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
> Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | | Web:
<http://www.davros.org>
> Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Is this some kind of status thing?
savage <S>
other 2 replies to your comments.news:xaY6uyIh...@romana.davros.org...
Please do not alter my email address, besides, anyone can email me by
clicking replyto. Check it out, it isn't munged or spam trapped.
> >I help to moderate a couple of newsgroups on a voluntary basis. During
the
> >course of my 'duties' I *have* to download all the binary content from
one
> >newsgroup, other members call me to investigate individual problem
binaries
> >in the other group[s]. In order to obtain the headers, to lodge
complaints
> >with the originating isp and to request closure of the offenders
> >account/websites etc, all too frequently I am obliged to download
material
> >which it may be 'unlawful' to be in posession of in the UK.
>
> I am not at all clear what you mean by this. Do you mean that you are
> hunting for child pornography, or do you mean that you are being sent
> mostly legitimate material that occasionally has child porn mixed in
> with it ?
>
The second question mort accurately describes what I do, under normal
circumstances, except that the material is rarely sent to me. Rather, it is
posted to the newsgroup in the same way that we are posting at uk.legal.
Under other circumstances, if I am called to check some posting, or asked to
assist, then I will 'follow' a child porn merchant until I have enough
information to at least cause an official investigation to be started. I
can't get the headers without downloading the posting, so it could easily be
argued that I knew what I was downloading
[snip]
>
> I am very unclear what your "work" is, which makes it hard to answer.
May I refer you to your own previous question and my reply? Ta
>
> There is a defence to a possession charge of "did not ask for the
> material and destroyed it as soon as he became aware of it". If you can
> show that you aren't soliciting this material and have good practice to
> deal with it when it arrives, you would probably be okay (contrary to
> the beliefs I see here, there are policemen who understand these
> issues).
For 90% of my 'work' this would be true, and if the information is accurate,
then it was the answer I was hoping to find by posting here. I'm afraid
that I still need chapter and verse before I can accept it.
I have to be honest and say that I did not like your other two posts, so my
responses are going to show some bias, despite your offer to help (below).
>
> If, on the other hand, you are setting yourself up as a vigilante who
> deliberately seeks the material out, you are putting yourself in a
> *very* risky position. If others are sending you the material to
> "assess", you are both at risk. They are far better passing it to the
> Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk), who can deal with
> relevant law enforcement authorities.
I don't like the word 'vigilante' either, but I must accept that it is more
accurate than 'moderator' on some occasions, always providing you accept
that none of our group takes the law into their own hands. I did not 'set
myself up' either as moderator or vigilante, instead I was invited to join
with others. I don't 'seek out' any of the material I find objectionable.
Much is posted where I choose to be, and more is brought to my attention by
individuals who are not in a position to do anything about it.
We do not exchange material between us. If I find, or I am lead to
something which I know will interest another or others, then I email details
of where I found it, and they take what they need.
We have some contact with organisations which act as intermediaries, but I
have also posted hard copy files in letterboxes, usually at night, in an
area away from where I live with some success, which is why you will often
find me posting at silly hours of the day and night.
>
> If you come somewhere between these two, you perhaps need to talk to
> your local police force *before* finding yourself in trouble. If you
> wish to email me in confidence, I may be able to assist further.
Me replyto isn't spam trapped. If you feel that I didn't go too far with
your character assassination, then please feel free to email me at the
replyto address.
Savage
savage <S>
Simon Palmer <s...@NOSPAMstyle-pr.com> wrote in message
>
> savage <S> <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> a écrit dans le message :
> p_p04.1232$VO.4...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> <Occasional snipping here and there. Please excuse
:) > I know this 'goatee' smiley from somewhere. I can't place it just now,
but I don't have a bad feeling
>
> > The software I use is much faster and much more absolute than a format,
> but
> > I have 1x9 Gb and 1x20Gb HD to contend with. Imagine formatting those
and
> > reinstalling everything every day.
>
> Sorry, I don't think you understand what I meant. If you just set it up so
> that all you temporary internet files are stored on one, otherwise blank
> hard drive, you can just reformat that every day without needing to
install
> anything. You could pick up a small (around 200Mb) drive for this purpose
> quite cheaply.
I didn't misunderstand. I just have my own way of working, but thanks for
clearing that part up.
>
> > I understand, I just don't see why anyone with a provable track record
> > should not be granted dispensation to do what the police are neither
> > equipped nor qualified to do.
>
> Hmm. I might not agree with the tone of his message, but Clive Feather
makes
> a valid point that you appear to be suggesting vigilantes are OK... ?
I don't consider myself to be a vigilante. I am vigilant, but that's where
the comparison ends. In my own group, I am simply a moderator. I say
things like; "Read the FAQ before posting here", and "This binary is off
topic for this group. No more please" I organise complaints against
SPAMmers and anyone posting hard core, and I enjoy the friendship of many
great people
If I do 'go after' someone, I'm more of a Magnum PI with Columbos attitude
and a smarter raincoat. I collect data, postings, headers, past postings,
email when I can (long story) and then I send it all on to the relevant
authority, sometimes I deliver in the dark hours, sometimes I have to
forward it via another. If the postings stop, or I learn of an arrest, then
I allow myself a smug grin and go back to my more usual 'work'.
>
> > It's about time that the Govt took informed advice before making laws.
I
> > usually pay a local schoolkid a fiver to sort my pc out when it trashes.
> > Maybe I should pass his name along to Messers Blair and Straw
>
> AIUI it takes many years for the Govt. to act on the Law Society's
> recommendations, so I wouldn't expect them to listen to too many computer
> experts. BTW, there was an excellent letter in Internet Magazine last
month
> about cryptography and the proposed legislation. I'll try and find it
> sometime if no-one saw it.
It took them just a few weeks to introduce the Firearms Amendment Act in
1997. I fail to see why it takes the UK years to introduce legislation
which is successfully in place in other countries, and why it takes as long
as 2 years to place a Bill before the House.
> Incidentally, if the schoolkid fixes your computer and comes across a lot
of
> 'illegal material' what do you think he tells his mates
> (which then gets back to parents, teachers, the school, the neighbourhood
> etc)?
You imagine too much. Sure I have enlisted the help of a neighbours son to
reinstall windoze and my drivers, especially the modem driver, but he
doesn't walk around with a copy of DIRT in his pocket. If the worst
happens, I can still perform a low level format from DOS, so to all intents
and purposes, I have an empty hard drive and no OS, therefore there is
nothing for him to see.
>
[snippetty]
>
[snippetty]
>
[snip!]
> Reasonable enough. Yet if the stuff was held in a network cache, could
that
> be seen as means of distribution?
By whom? If blame could not be proven for one, then the other has no
foundation, unless the Ass decided the company is at fault and prosecuted
the poor old Chairman of the Board or the Company Secetary. They can't hold
the machine responsible, so I reckon this would be another no-go from the
CPS
>
> > Read Lee Traceys theory on the same subject, posted here on 14/11/99.
He
> > took this scenario a stage further, and the reality is quite frightening
> in
> > its' simplicity and efficiency. Anyone who has computer literate
enemies
> > should *really* take notice
>
> The message was deleted from my server before I got to it, but I have read
> stuff on a similar theme.
I particularly liked the part where he sent obscene email to his 'enemy',
then called the police, and when they were arriving, he emailed an urgent
"Clean your hard drive quick!" message for the police to find when they
fired up his DUN. Nice touch, but not quite the perfect crime. Email, even
from an anonymous account such as Hotmail can still be traced, but sent from
a cyber caff or library... it depends if their security cameras were
operating and the tapes had not been overwritten. He could kill two birds
with one stone and email from another enemies PC whilst he was at the loo.
The guy thinks like I do, and he wrote a whole "Whodunnit" in a couple of
hundred words, which of course, I can't do. My last novel ran to over 4 and
a half million words, but it was all in the best possible taste.
>
[sorry! but thanks for the link]
> > > I hope some of this was of interest to you,
> >
> > Immensely, thank you for taking the time to dig it out. I hope you find
> > some food for thought in my 'logic'
Now I miss out on your critique of my own little variation. Maybe we will
see a spate of lawyers and poiticians charged with downloading and
distributing porn they never saw in the first place because they didn't read
my scenario and use a Net Nanny Condom. On the up side, we get ruthless
computer literate replacements. Well, that would be a start.
>
> Indeed. (I left this because it fits quite well) <grin>
>
>
> regards,
> Simon
>
>
> Take care what you download. It might be my book!
Savage <S>
Jon Rouse
>If, on the other hand, you are setting yourself up as a vigilante who
>deliberately seeks the material out, you are putting yourself in a
>*very* risky position. If others are sending you the material to
>"assess", you are both at risk. They are far better passing it to the
>Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk), who can deal with
>relevant law enforcement authorities.
Does this mean that the ISPs with whom you are connected are already
censoring newsfeeds based on your (or some unelected police officer's) view
of what is illegal?
--
The views expressed are my own, and may not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
Axel
> I help to moderate a couple of newsgroups on a voluntary basis. During the
> course of my 'duties' I *have* to download all the binary content from one
> newsgroup, other members call me to investigate individual problem binaries
> in the other group[s].
You don't _have_ to download the material in question, you do it because
you wish to. Nobody forces you to download anything.
If it is a question of binaries being posted in non-binary newsgroups,
then it is perfectly possible to ascertain that a posting is a binary
without downloading it or viewing an image (and thereby having a copy of it).
If someone else sees something which is illegal, why can he not report
it himself?
> In order to obtain the headers, to lodge complaints
> with the originating isp and to request closure of the offenders
> account/websites etc, all too frequently I am obliged to download material
> which it may be 'unlawful' to be in posession of in the UK. Even checking
> the true location of a website which uses a semi anonymous redirect service
> such as clickto / jumpto can 'contaminate' my system.
Unless you are officially sanctioned you have no business looking into
dodgy websites unless they are on your own systems.
> Pornography in inappropriate newsgroups, and *any* child porn is something I
> feel strongly about, but in light of recent events, I have some fears about
> being tarred with the same brush as a certain singer, should it be deemed
> that my pc system was worthy of inspection, especially when I had an active
> night followed by a lazy day.
> My track record and posting history should speak for themselves, but would
> my 'work' be a valid defence if the 'worst' was to happen, given that the
> police and the DPP are the most fickle of creatures and UK law can
> be an ass ?
I would like to emphasize that I am not implying that the following
remark applies to you, but it would be exacly the sort of thing someone
who wanted to look at dodgy material would use as a cover for his
activities.
Charles Lindsey
>If, on the other hand, you are setting yourself up as a vigilante who
>deliberately seeks the material out, you are putting yourself in a
>*very* risky position. If others are sending you the material to
>"assess", you are both at risk. They are far better passing it to the
>Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk), who can deal with
>relevant law enforcement authorities.
But then the IWF would be storing the material on their computers "for
assessment". Is that legal? Surely if the IWF are allowed to do that, then
so is the questioner.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Axel
> Does this mean that the ISPs with whom you are connected are already
> censoring newsfeeds based on your (or some unelected police officer's) view
> of what is illegal?
Most ISPs filter newsfeeds in one way or another. The main concern is
spam rather than illegal content.
savage <S>
replying to two posts in one because they are connected.
Jon Rouse <rou...@nospam.postoffice.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94404453...@igateway.postoffice.co.uk...
> Clive D.W. Feather wrote in message ...
> > [snip]
> Does this mean that the ISPs with whom you are connected are already
> censoring newsfeeds based on your (or some unelected police officer's)
view
> of what is illegal?
Not directly. If a complaint is lodged, the decision to cancel or not
ultimately rests with the isp, or more usually the postmaster or newsmaster
of that isp. Complaints are based on prevailing laws, moral decency and the
age (or suspected age) of the subjects within the binary.
In the past week, I have lodged complaints against two particular images
posted to uk.~ newsgroups from an .ru source (.ru = Russia) One posting
was cancelled by my isp and several others, the other was not. It would
appear that in their view, a photograph of a10 or 11 year old girl
performing oral sex on a boy of similar age is offensive, but a photograph
of a girl of around 13 performing oral sex on a much older man is not, yet
it is my understanding that posession of either picture would be an offence
within the UK, whether the picture was kept for private use or posted to
others.
Unfortunately, some ISP's will accept cancels, others will not, so other
factors are involved, and not just our 'requests'.
A complaint was lodged with the originating isp, but it was not acted upon.
It isn't a language barrier problem because I received a reply in good
quality English, so I must accept that either the images are not illegal in
Russia, or the ISP has no rules about this type of posting. A Russian
speaking colleague investigated the isp to read their Terms of Service, and
discovered that there are no rules covering the content of postings, or of
spamming newsgroups.
>
Savage <S>
Axel <ax...@white-eagle.co.uk> wrote in message
news:82349q$rd$1...@weber.a2000.nl...
Really?
The newsgroup I am mainly associated with is filtered by over 60% of the
'free' UK isp's, not because of spam (we had no spam last week and four this
week), or illegal content (we have very little of that now) but simply
because of the groups name.
As a simple example; one of my isp's carries only 6 alt.binaries.fetish
newsgroups. My 'other' isp's carry 165 or more.
That, my friend is censorship.
What I try to do is not censor, but censure, by enforcing existing rules, or
by asking that those existing rules be enforced.
Savage <S>
savage <S>
> savage <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > I help to moderate a couple of newsgroups on a voluntary basis. During
the
> > course of my 'duties' I *have* to download all the binary content from
one
> > newsgroup, other members call me to investigate individual problem
binaries
> > in the other group[s].
>
> You don't _have_ to download the material in question, you do it because
> you wish to. Nobody forces you to download anything.
How then would I continue to moderate the newsgroup?
>
> If it is a question of binaries being posted in non-binary newsgroups,
> then it is perfectly possible to ascertain that a posting is a binary
> without downloading it or viewing an image (and thereby having a copy of
it).
This does arise, and quite frequently too. Again, how would I moderate the
group and lodge complaints without downloading the post to retrieve the
headers? The headers are proof, and to complain without them is a pointless
exercise because the originating isp can do nothing.
>
> If someone else sees something which is illegal, why can he not report
> it himself?
This may come as a surprise, but not everyone can get the headers to lodge
such a complaint, which is why I collect them, and copy/paste them into a
new posting, along with all the abuse contact addresses, for others to use
if they wish. Similarly, not everyone knows how to lodge a complaint,
whilst many others are afraid to become involved.
BTW, can you retrieve headers using Linux / Agent? I don't know, which is
why I am asking, and I have a spare PC and a copy of the Linux OS which I
would like to experiment with.
>
> > In order to obtain the headers, to lodge complaints
> > with the originating isp and to request closure of the offenders
> > account/websites etc, all too frequently I am obliged to download
material
> > which it may be 'unlawful' to be in posession of in the UK. Even
checking
> > the true location of a website which uses a semi anonymous redirect
service
> > such as clickto / jumpto can 'contaminate' my system.
>
> Unless you are officially sanctioned you have no business looking into
> dodgy websites unless they are on your own systems.
How do I know they are 'dodgy' unless I look? Quite often, the website is
far less innoccuous than the spam which advertised it would have us believe.
Either way, I need to know where the website is located in order to lodge
complaints. (See above about clickto/jumpto/goto/clickthrough These
redirect companies exist to shield offending websites from people like me.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work)
I don't believe that anyone can be 'officially sanctioned' to investigate
porn or child abuse in this way, but most isp's welcome our reports and
complaints, and I have lodged over 700 complaints from this account in the
past 6 months and I'm still here, so maybe we have 'invisible' support.
>
> > Pornography in inappropriate newsgroups, and *any* child porn is
something I
> > feel strongly about, but in light of recent events, I have some fears
about
> > being tarred with the same brush as a certain singer, should it be
deemed
> > that my pc system was worthy of inspection, especially when I had an
active
> > night followed by a lazy day.
>
> > My track record and posting history should speak for themselves, but
would
> > my 'work' be a valid defence if the 'worst' was to happen, given that
the
> > police and the DPP are the most fickle of creatures and UK law can
> > be an ass ?
Actually, I meant the CPS, but DPP is close enough
>
> I would like to emphasize that I am not implying that the following
> remark applies to you,
accepted
> but it would be exacly the sort of thing someone
> who wanted to look at dodgy material would use as a cover for his
> activities.
>
Eventually, all the material I collect is forwarded to the relevant
authority whenever possible. Each page of hard copy, every data file and
floppy disc I produce with this evidence bears a serial number which is
unique, but not directly traceable, to me, in the hopes that should I fall
foul of the law whilst researching the bad guys, I may have a 'way out'.
Hardly the actions of a mucky pic collector, but I do take your point.
Savage <S>
>
>
>
>
>
Axel
> This does arise, and quite frequently too. Again, how would I moderate the
> group and lodge complaints without downloading the post to retrieve the
> headers? The headers are proof, and to complain without them is a pointless
> exercise because the originating isp can do nothing.
> BTW, can you retrieve headers using Linux / Agent? I don't know, which is
> why I am asking, and I have a spare PC and a copy of the Linux OS which I
> would like to experiment with.
You can retrieve headers using any operating system as they can be
downloaded independently of the body of an article.
But you can also look at an article's header and body without actually
downloading the article. I would suggest the newsreader tin for this -
it is available for both unix and micro$hit operating systems.
For clarification, by 'downloading', I mean making a copy on your own
computer.
>> Unless you are officially sanctioned you have no business looking into
>> dodgy websites unless they are on your own systems.
> How do I know they are 'dodgy' unless I look? Quite often, the website is
> far less innoccuous than the spam which advertised it would have us believe.
> Either way, I need to know where the website is located in order to lodge
> complaints. (See above about clickto/jumpto/goto/clickthrough These
> redirect companies exist to shield offending websites from people like me.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work)
I am confused here... are you investigating the websites concerned to
complain about spam sent to a newsgroup or the content of the website?
> I don't believe that anyone can be 'officially sanctioned' to investigate
> porn or child abuse in this way, but most isp's welcome our reports and
The police are.
Axel
>> Most ISPs filter newsfeeds in one way or another. The main concern is
>> spam rather than illegal content.
> Really?
Yes.
> The newsgroup I am mainly associated with is filtered by over 60% of the
> 'free' UK isp's, not because of spam (we had no spam last week and four this
> week), or illegal content (we have very little of that now) but simply
> because of the groups name.
You may not be aware of attempted postings of spam to a newsgroup
because it may have been filtered before reaching the newsserver that
you use.
> As a simple example; one of my isp's carries only 6 alt.binaries.fetish
> newsgroups. My 'other' isp's carry 165 or more.
> That, my friend is censorship.
A news administrator has the right to choose which groups to accept and
which not to accept. Frequently such decisions may be made based on the
utility of the group to the people using his news server, the volume of
space occupied by postings to a group, whether the group is carried by
the news servers his server. Additionally he may not automatically
accept requests for the creation of new newsgroups, particularly in the
alt. hierarchy.
savage <S>
> "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> Most ISPs filter newsfeeds in one way or another. The main concern is
> >> spam rather than illegal content.
>
> > Really?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The newsgroup I am mainly associated with is filtered by over 60% of the
> > 'free' UK isp's, not because of spam (we had no spam last week and four
this
> > week), or illegal content (we have very little of that now) but simply
> > because of the groups name.
>
> You may not be aware of attempted postings of spam to a newsgroup
> because it may have been filtered before reaching the newsserver that
> you use.
If you had REALLY read my initial statement and question, then you would
realise just how silly your statement sounds.
Savage <S>
Axel
>> You may not be aware of attempted postings of spam to a newsgroup
>> because it may have been filtered before reaching the newsserver that
>> you use.
> If you had REALLY read my initial statement and question, then you would
> realise just how silly your statement sounds.
I did. But I fail to see why you find my statement to be silly, although
it is not directly related to your question. It's a simple fact.
Many news servers are configured to automatically reject articles which
are excessively cross-posted, binaries in non-binary groups, HTML encoded
posts and posts from specified domains amongst others
savage <S>
> "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> wrote:
> > This does arise, and quite frequently too. Again, how would I moderate
the
> > group and lodge complaints without downloading the post to retrieve the
> > headers? The headers are proof, and to complain without them is a
pointless
> > exercise because the originating isp can do nothing.
>
> > BTW, can you retrieve headers using Linux / Agent? I don't know, which
is
> > why I am asking, and I have a spare PC and a copy of the Linux OS which
I
> > would like to experiment with.
>
> You can retrieve headers using any operating system as they can be
> downloaded independently of the body of an article.
I don't see how, but maybe I misunderstand you. These are your headers,
BTW - just to clarify which part of the post I am referring to.
Path:
nnrp4.clara.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!colt.net!news-x.support.nl
!pascal.a2000.nl!newsfeed.a2000.nl!not-for-mail
From: "Axel" <ax...@white-eagle.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.legal
Subject: Re: Newsgroup moderator is not Glitter
Date: 2 Dec 1999 10:22:57 GMT
Organization: WEI
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <825ha1$sia$1...@weber.a2000.nl>
References: <6qe%3.1735$F7.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>
<822v1p$ofu$1...@weber.a2000.nl> <NXd14.168$9j1....@nnrp3.clara.net>
Reply-To: ax...@white-eagle.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: fw.a2000.com
X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 944130177 29258 62.108.1.186 (2 Dec 1999 10:22:57
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@a2000.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Dec 1999 10:22:57 GMT
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990624 ("Dawnrazor") (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.36 (i686))
Xref: newspeer.clara.net uk.legal:190822
:
If you mean something like this:
[Subject] | [From] | [Sent] | [Size]
Free Porn!! nowhere 02/12/99 38kb
Then it's about as useful as a chocolate fireguard
>
> But you can also look at an article's header and body without actually
> downloading the article. I would suggest the newsreader tin for this -
> it is available for both unix and micro$hit operating systems.
> For clarification, by 'downloading', I mean making a copy on your own
> computer.
Again, I fail to understand. How can any software 'look' at an articles'
body [the text or binary content] without downloading it from the server?
I'm always willing to try anything which will give me an advantage over the
bad guys. Could you tell me where I can get copies of 'tin 1.4' for both
Win and Unix ?
>
> >> Unless you are officially sanctioned you have no business looking into
> >> dodgy websites unless they are on your own systems.
>
> > How do I know they are 'dodgy' unless I look? Quite often, the website
is
> > far less innoccuous than the spam which advertised it would have us
believe.
> > Either way, I need to know where the website is located in order to
lodge
> > complaints. (See above about clickto/jumpto/goto/clickthrough These
> > redirect companies exist to shield offending websites from people like
me.
> > Unfortunately, it doesn't work)
>
> I am confused here...
Oh why do I get that sinking feeling??????????
> are you investigating the websites concerned to
> complain about spam sent to a newsgroup or the content of the website?
Yes - but to clarify things [yet again] the former initially, and the latter
if I find anything which I consider to be 'unlawful'. I found two such
instances on British operated websites in the last 24 hours. If they hadn't
SPAMmed the newsgroups I am with, I would not have found them because I
don't go out 'hunting' for this stuff. Now there are two less.
>
> > I don't believe that anyone can be 'officially sanctioned' to
investigate
> > porn or child abuse in this way, but most isp's welcome our reports and
>
> The police are.
So are the NSPCC, Social Services and HM C&E. 'Investigative reporters'
from newspapers and TV are also granted immunity from charges for being in
posession of 'certain material' which they uncover as a part of their
investigations, but this isn't what I meant. I was talking about unofficial
individuals.
You may not understand this either, but the majority of cases are
investigated by these bodies only *after* they receive complaints or
information from people like me.
If the information I have already given is confusing you, then you may not
be able to grasp this concept either, but I have the expertise to track
child abusers and people who deal in child pornography, and I want to put it
to better use than simply lodging complaints with that persons isp, without
putting myself at risk of being charged with gathering, or being in
posession of, the evidence I find.
Savage <S>
I can hide, but I can't run........
Axel
>> You can retrieve headers using any operating system as they can be
>> downloaded independently of the body of an article.
> I don't see how, but maybe I misunderstand you. These are your headers,
> BTW - just to clarify which part of the post I am referring to.
[header snipped]
Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
Use telnet to connect to your news server on port 119.
Then type the following command:
GROUP uk.local.london
You will get an answer such as...
111 6 590 600 uk.local.lodon
Then type:
HEAD 600
Where 600 is the the fourth figure returned in the answer above.
Alternatively if you know an article's message ID, type for example,
HEAD <81v432$8tc$1...@supernews.com>
>e But you can also look at an article's header and body without actually
>> downloading the article. I would suggest the newsreader tin for this -
>> it is available for both unix and micro$hit operating systems.
>> For clarification, by 'downloading', I mean making a copy on your own
>> computer.
> Again, I fail to understand. How can any software 'look' at an articles'
> body [the text or binary content] without downloading it from the server?
There are two ways of viewing an article. You can first download it
making a copy on your hard disc and then view this copy. Alternatively
you simply view it without saving it to your hard disc. That's why I
defined what I mean by 'downloading'.
> I'm always willing to try anything which will give me an advantage over the
> bad guys. Could you tell me where I can get copies of 'tin 1.4' for both
> Win and Unix ?o
savage <S>
> "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> You may not be aware of attempted postings of spam to a newsgroup
> >> because it may have been filtered before reaching the newsserver that
> >> you use.
>
> > If you had REALLY read my initial statement and question, then you would
> > realise just how silly your statement sounds.
>
> I did. But I fail to see why you find my statement to be silly, although
> it is not directly related to your question. It's a simple fact.
>
the spam or offensive postings, but my posting was not about filtered
newsfeeds, it's about the legal implications of being 'caught' in posession
of 'illicit' data which I collect in order to do something about the number
of people offering child pornogaphy for sale or exchange. If you had
*really* read my original question, that would have been obvious.
Now there are two distinct threads, so I have changed the subject line to
identify which thread I would prefer to read, and it ain't this one
> Many news servers are configured to automatically reject articles which
> are excessively cross-posted, binaries in non-binary groups, HTML encoded
> posts and posts from specified domains amongst others
>
This is usually done at source and not at the server. Don't you think that
spammers already know this? Most of them hijack a relay somewhere in any
case and avoid source filtering. They also do it in an attempt to hide
their true identity when they post illegal material, and because it is a
much more efficient way to post mass spams than dialling up an account at
Freeserve [for example].
As for html, binaries in non binary groups, encoded posts etc, here's one I
picked up in a non binary group just a couple of days ago. I have broken
all the links so they are harmless now. The post was reported as being
under 1kb, and there was nothing to suggest the redirects were there, or
that once the redirects were invoked, the download was around 60kb
------paste--------
Background="http:Xmembers,tripod.com/~aaaa_na1/backs3/silverswirlsatin.gif"
;
TextColor=yellow
X-Ref [I removed the X-ref line and some details which would otherwise
identify the original source >>savage]
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<!-- BEGIN PAGETALK CODE -->
<table><tr>
<td><a href="http:/X/www,pagetalk.com/play.phtml?u=11022293&b=1"><img
src="http:/X/www,pagetalk.com/pagetalk-button.phtml?u=11022293&b=1"
alt="Play audio for button (1)" width=95 height=29 border=0
align=bottom></a></td></tr>
<tr><td><a
href="http:/X/www,pagetalk.com/logo-click.phtml?u=11022293&b=1"><img
src="http:/X/www,pagetalk.com/pagetalk-logo.phtml?u=11022293&b=1"
border=0 width=95 height=11 align=bottom></a></td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- END PAGETALK CODE -->
<body
background="http:/X/members,tripod.com/~aaaa_na1/backs3/silverswirlsatin.gif
"
text="yellow"></body><embed
src="http:/X/www,geocities.com/Area51/Realm/8804/woman.ram
"autostart="true"></< a
href="http:/X/www,wunderground.com/US/PA/Lancaster.html">
<img
src="http:/X/banners,wunderground.com/banner/gizmotimetempbig/US/PA/Tamaqua.
g
if"
alt="Click for Tamaqua, Pennsylvania Forecast" height=40 width=467>
savage <S>
> "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com> wrote:
<<Huge hackety hack>>
> > I'm always willing to try anything which will give me an advantage over
the
> > bad guys. Could you tell me where I can get copies of 'tin 1.4' for
both
> > Win and Unix ?o
>
> http://www.tin.org/
My turn to apologise. I misunderstood completely. I've been trying to
fathom a similar method to the one you describe for some time with no
success. Back to page one of the user manual for me, I think
>
>
I'm sorry for other comments I made earlier, too. Taken a little out of
context, it looked for all the world as though you were extracting the
wee-wee. Now I see where you were leading.
Cheers
sav <--- the friendly version of Savage
ps. I don't think you should read my last post [subject re: filtered
newsfeeds [was~ ~. It isn't too complimentary, but I didn't call you
names.
Axel
> Your statement is silly because I couldn't moderate the group if I can't see
> the spam or offensive postings, but my posting was not about filtered
> newsfeeds, it's about the legal implications of being 'caught' in posession
> of 'illicit' data which I collect in order to do something about the number
> of people offering child pornogaphy for sale or exchange. If you had
> *really* read my original question, that would have been obvious.
I did read your original post - but by the nature of the medium, threads
on Usenet tend to wander from the original discussion.
>> Many news servers are configured to automatically reject articles which
>> are excessively cross-posted, binaries in non-binary groups, HTML encoded
>> posts and posts from specified domains amongst others
> This is usually done at source and not at the server.
> Don't you think that
> spammers already know this? Most of them hijack a relay somewhere in any
> case and avoid source filtering.
A sensible news administrator wishing to avoid spam would apply it to all
incoming articles, not just those from his own users.
> As for html, binaries in non binary groups, encoded posts etc, here's one I
> picked up in a non binary group just a couple of days ago. I have broken
> all the links so they are harmless now. The post was reported as being
> under 1kb, and there was nothing to suggest the redirects were there, or
> that once the redirects were invoked, the download was around 60kb
That's why it is a very good idea to use a newsreader which doesn't
render HTML!
Even better for such posts to be weeded outby the automatic application
of a filter.
Charles Lindsey
>This does arise, and quite frequently too. Again, how would I moderate the
>group and lodge complaints without downloading the post to retrieve the
>headers? The headers are proof, and to complain without them is a pointless
>exercise because the originating isp can do nothing.
If all you want is the headers, and not the body of an article, then it is
quite possible to get them by use of the proper NNTP commands (save quite
a bot of your phone bill too, that way).
savage <S>
news:FM44K...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk...
> In <NXd14.168$9j1....@nnrp3.clara.net> "savage <S>"
<gunsmith@@freeuk.com> writes:
>
> >This does arise, and quite frequently too. Again, how would I moderate
the
> >group and lodge complaints without downloading the post to retrieve the
> >headers? The headers are proof, and to complain without them is a
pointless
> >exercise because the originating isp can do nothing.
>
> If all you want is the headers, and not the body of an article, then it is
> quite possible to get them by use of the proper NNTP commands (save quite
>-------------------------------------
Charles,
Would you care to email a thick Lancashire lad some instructions please?
I have tried this before from hurriedly handwritten notes and got nowhere
very quickly.
Savage <S>
savage <S>
>
,,<<Snip>>
> I did read your original post - but by the nature of the medium, threads
> on Usenet tend to wander from the original discussion.
> A sensible news administrator wishing to avoid spam would apply it to all
> incoming articles, not just those from his own users.
>
> That's why it is a very good idea to use a newsreader which doesn't
> render HTML!
>
> Even better for such posts to be weeded outby the automatic application
> of a filter.
>
but I'm glad you did.
I tried other readers, such as Agent and Mozilla - I think there was
another, but I forget. I had problems getting used to them and I couldn't
always 'see' what was there. Several of my colleagues swear by them,
unfortunately, I spent too much time swearing at them.
Thanks for the link to tin, I'll try to install it on the other pc when I
have reinstalled the Op Sys.
sav
Axel
> My turn to apologise. I misunderstood completely. I've been trying to
> fathom a similar method to the one you describe for some time with no
> success. Back to page one of the user manual for me, I think
Apology accepted. I understand my posts may sometimes be terse (and full
of typos!) as I generally need to fit in them in between other
activities.
Axel
> I tried other readers, such as Agent and Mozilla - I think there was
> another, but I forget. I had problems getting used to them and I couldn't
> always 'see' what was there. Several of my colleagues swear by them,
> unfortunately, I spent too much time swearing at them.
> Thanks for the link to tin, I'll try to install it on the other pc when I
> have reinstalled the Op Sys.
It may take a bit of getting used to as it is text based and fits very
well in a unix environment, but may seem very strange to someone used to
using M$ Windows. Good luck (I hope you don't end up swearing at tin as
well)!
savage <S>
Thanks for your help and advice Axel. Nice to meet you
Savage <S>
savage <S>
<{R}@sunshine.tm> wrote in message
news:yOpGOA6qKjuk65...@semolina.org...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 1999 18:39:41 GMT, "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> If this is an example of your level of competence, then you are
dangerously
> out of your depth, sunshine. If I was plod I would be on my way round your
> place to "check you out"
>
>
> {R}
Because I asked for information about an OS I have never used?
That's a strange standard to judge someone by.
Savage <S>
Anthony R. Gold
S wrote:
> Because I asked for information about an OS I have never used?
>
> That's a strange standard to judge someone by.
To what standard should someone be judged who asks for information on
Linux in legal, and how do you judge such a person to that standard?
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / W2TG email: tg...@panix.com
Jon Rouse
>
>Your statement is silly because I couldn't moderate the group if I can't
see
>the spam or offensive postings, but my posting was not about filtered
>newsfeeds, it's about the legal implications of being 'caught' in posession
>of 'illicit' data which I collect in order to do something about the number
>of people offering child pornogaphy for sale or exchange.
According to a policeman on Channel 5 the other night, it is not an offence
to view porn, but it is to 'publish' it, by passing it on to others.
Presumably Gary Glitter was prosecuting for passing his pictures on to the
repair technician, albeit unwittingly?
Anthony R. Gold
S wrote:
> Because I asked for information about an OS I have never used?
>
> That's a strange standard to judge someone by.
To what standard should someone be judged who asks for information on
Linux in uk.legal, and how do you judge such a person to that standard?
savage <S>
"Anthony R. Gold" <tg...@microvest.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:19991203.090...@microvest.demon.co.uk...
> On Friday, in article <bUD14.628$Ez1....@nnrp3.clara.net>
> S wrote:
>
> > Because I asked for information about an OS I have never used?
(I didn't raise the point, I asked in order to clarify a statement made by
another in response to my own question)
> >
> > That's a strange standard to judge someone by.
>
> To what standard should someone be judged who asks for information on
> Linux in legal, and how do you judge such a person to that standard?
With an open mind, and with the *full* facts in front of him perhaps??
Rather like the senior police officer with whom I spoke at some length
earlier today.
Maybe you would have more success taking pot-shots at other contributors who
attempted to encourage an individual to commit a breach of the peace in
another thread.
Savage <S>
Callsign in the G3B** series witheld for obvious reasons
savage <S>
> savage wrote in message ...
>
offence
> to view porn, but it is to 'publish' it, by passing it on to others.
> Presumably Gary Glitter was prosecuting for passing his pictures on to the
> repair technician, albeit unwittingly?
>
The senior police officer[1] I spoke with this morning wasn't aware that
individuals are willing or able to gather information to pass on to the
police, but he said something along the following lines;
"I view it as a matter of intent. If an individual is collecting this
information in order to pass it to the authorities, then no offence is being
committed, and if you suspect that someone within the UK is gathering these
pictures to sell, supply, or exchange with others, then please feel free to
telephone my office at any time."
Now there's a man with an open mind
[1] We have the same handshake
Savage <S>
--
"This will not affect the pound in your pocket." Harold Wilson
Anthony R. Gold
<94421714...@igateway.postoffice.co.uk>
rou...@nospam.postoffice.co.uk "Jon Rouse" wrote:
> According to a policeman on Channel 5 the other night, it is not an offence
> to view porn, but it is to 'publish' it, by passing it on to others.
> Presumably Gary Glitter was prosecuting for passing his pictures on to the
> repair technician, albeit unwittingly?
Obscene images featuring children are illegal either to possess or to
manufacture. I believe that in the Gadd case the judge ruled that
downloading images by phone amounted to a manufacture, and so he was
also convicted of that.
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>> >but I'm pretty sure the 'rules' were changed following
>> >a recent case / judgement involving Demon,
>> (2) It hinges on peculiarities of defamation law, while your situation
>> hinges on peculiarities of certain other laws.
>>
>Which is what I said several days ago.
And therefore the Godfrey case has little or no influence on your
situation. Which was the point I was trying to get across to you.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>Sorry, this is gonna be a long one, but it is worth reading, cos it shows
>exactly what you are......
>
>Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:S5kCmJJT...@romana.davros.org...
>> In article <p_p04.1232$VO.4...@nnrp3.clara.net>, savage <S>
>> <gunsmith@@Freeuk.com> writes
>
>Please don't amend or delete my email address. Ta.
I haven't. Your postings contain the header lines:
Reply-To: "savage <S>" <guns...@freeuk.com>
From: "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com>
My software has interpreted them in that way. Whether it ought to be
adding extra quote marks because of your odd "name" is an interesting
question.
>> Since it's unclear what you are actually doing that needs
>> "dispensation", I can't answer that further.
>To whom is it unclear?
Me, for a start.
>I believe my initial statement was clearly written
>and it was written in such a way that anyone with a basic grasp of English
>could understand it.
You may believe that. I believe that you left a number of ambiguities in
it. If you were looking for genuine advice, you should be willing to
clear up those ambiguities.
>I'm a newsgroup moderator, spam fighter, and given
>the chance, I'll track down anyone who posts or purveys child pornography
>through the internet or usenet. Is it clear enough now?
No. What are you doing that involves "tracking down" ? This is a key
question in answering your request for advice.
>> But my initial question
>> would be to ask why you consider vigilantism is acceptable ?
>Why Sir do you hint that it is not?
Because I believe that law enforcement should be done in a controlled
manner, not by every idiot who believes that "the end justifies the
means" and decides to short-cut our constitutional protections in order
to "catch the real criminals". [And, before you say anything else, I
sometimes include the Home Secretary in that classification.]
>>>It's about time that the Govt took informed advice before making laws.
>> Curiously, they quite often do (not always, I'll accept). Do you have a
>> specific law that you think is being misapplied to the Internet ?
>Law isn't my field, but I notice how many of the regulars here keep saying
>"this law is wrong" and "that law should be changed........",
Which doesn't mean that informed advice wasn't taken. I happen to feel
that several laws are wrong and should be repealed or changed; I also
feel that some proposed laws are wrong. However, I don't think that, in
general, the government are failing to take advice. Failing to listen to
all of it, perhaps, or failing to draw the correct (IMAO, of course)
conclusions.
>Misapplied? I'm not qualified to say, but I believe that more can be done,
>much more quickly and with far less pedantry, even if it's only a simple law
>saying "Thou shalt not spam",
Define "spam" in a way that is workable in criminal law and doesn't stop
legitimate use of email (like me emailing you about this topic).
>and "Thou shalt not post child (or underage)
>porn across boundaries where said porn is illegal",
There is such a law in this country.
>> >and thousands of others are
>> >pretty quick to cancel postings which I and my colleagues warn them
>about.
>> And what exactly does this mean ?
>Exactly what it says. Your sig says that you're an internet expert; so why
>ask?
Because I don't know what you mean. Do you really have an audience of
more than 2000 people all of whom issue cancel messages whenever you say
so ? Who are your "colleagues" in this matter - are you running some
kind of business ? What do you warn them about ? How do you find out
about what it is you are warning ?
Part of being an expert on a topic is knowing when to ask questions and
not just pontificate.
>> >The First and Fourth Amendments allows freedom of speech (including
>> >publication) EXCEPT where that right is used in furtherance or incitement
>of
>> >an illegal act (or words to that effect).
>>
>> I don't recall any such words in either amendment.
>
>That, Sir, is a cheap way to try to discredit me,
I'm not at all trying to discredit you. I'm trying to advise you in an
area where many people have come, or been close to coming, a very nasty
cropper, and in which I have more experience than I desire.
The First Amendment (assuming you're talking about US law, not UK (where
the first amendment to the constitution is rather different)) says
something like "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the
Press". I don't recall the Fourth, but isn't the one about no searches
without a warrant ?
If freedom of speech was "EXCEPT where that right is used in furtherance
or incitement of an illegal act" then it would be useless; all the
government needs to do is to pass a law saying that X is illegal and
that talking about X is inciting it. Then where's your precious freedom
of speech gone ?
>and this is the second
>time you tried that within these threads,
Huh ?
>Do you recall typing this?
>------------text separator-------------
>
>> (1) That case hasn't come to trial yet.
Yes. That case hasn't come to trial yet.
>and here's my reply;
>
>Details of the judgement I was referring to (L Godfrey v Demon Internet)
>were published in my computer mag on July 15th 1999.
The judgements (there were two) were on preliminary matters. They were
also irrelevant to your situation, as I have pointed out.
>Now would you be so kind as to allow me the same right that any
>defendant should have in this country. The onus is not on me to prove that
>I was right, but yours to prove that I was wrong. The floor is yours, and
>the world waits with bated breath, as do several dozen of my fellows, some
>of whom are expressing more than a passing interest in this thread.
I'm sorry, but at this point I have no idea what you are asking for or
talking about. You are wrong about the status of Godfrey v Demon - I'm
in a much better position than you to know. You are wrong about the 1st
and 4th Amendments - I don't have access to an on-line archive right now
or I'd quote them. So what is it that I need to prove wrong ?
>> >Publishing pornography (in broad
>> >terms) is an illegal act, so cannot be covered by the First and
>Fourth....
Publishing pornography (in broad terms, with certain exceptions) is a
legal act in both the UK and USA.
>> This is a circular, and thus invalid, argument.
>
>Twaddle.
Nothing of the sort. If freedom of speech was "except for illegal
material" then all you need to do is declare (say) postings by anonymous
people illegal and suddenly freedom of speech doesn't cover them.
>Read your household insurance policy. Parts about War, civil
>disobedience and Acts of God spring immediately to mind.
Freedom of speech isn't covered by my household insurance. Nor is the
concept of exclusion the same as what you're suggesting.
If the First Amendment read "Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech except for libel", that's an exclusion. Fine.
If my insurance said: "covered against theft except items taken outside
the boundaries of the property" it would be closer to your claim.
>> Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
>
>Is this some kind of status thing?
No, it's exactly what it says: I don't want email to the From: or
Sender: address, but to the Reply-To: address. This is because I am
writing this article on my laptop (the Sender: address) and not my main
mailbox.
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>The posting time says 19.04, but this did not show until after I posted my
>other 2 replies to your comments.
That's how Usenet works. Particularly when using a laptop.
>> In article <6qe%3.1735$F7.1...@nnrp3.clara.net>, savage
>> <gunsmith@?.com> writes
>Please do not alter my email address,
See my previous posting.
>besides, anyone can email me by
>clicking replyto. Check it out, it isn't munged or spam trapped.
True. Though "clicking replyto" is meaningess to many people.
>>>I help to moderate a couple of newsgroups on a voluntary basis.
[...]
>> I am not at all clear what you mean by this. Do you mean that you are
>> hunting for child pornography, or do you mean that you are being sent
>> mostly legitimate material that occasionally has child porn mixed in
>> with it ?
>>
>The second question mort accurately describes what I do, under normal
>circumstances, except that the material is rarely sent to me. Rather, it is
>posted to the newsgroup in the same way that we are posting at uk.legal.
Hang on. You said that you are moderating the group. In which case the
only material that should appear there is that that you (and any fellow-
moderators) post. So either you are not moderating in the sense that
term is normally used or you are misexplaining something else.
>Under other circumstances, if I am called to check some posting, or asked to
>assist, then I will 'follow' a child porn merchant until I have enough
>information to at least cause an official investigation to be started.
If you are told that "article <12...@wibble.ungle> is child porn" then:
(1) You cannot rely on the "I didn't know" defence.
(2) That's enough evidence for an official investigation to be started.
As far as (2) is concerned, if you sent that statement and nothing else
to IWF, the article would be retrieved, looked at, and if it was deemed
to be child porn ISPs would be asked to remove it and the police would
be given all the details that can be determined.
>> There is a defence to a possession charge of "did not ask for the
>> material and destroyed it as soon as he became aware of it". If you can
>> show that you aren't soliciting this material and have good practice to
>> deal with it when it arrives, you would probably be okay (contrary to
>> the beliefs I see here, there are policemen who understand these
>> issues).
>
>For 90% of my 'work' this would be true, and if the information is accurate,
>then it was the answer I was hoping to find by posting here. I'm afraid
>that I still need chapter and verse before I can accept it.
As far as the defence is concerned, see the material that is at
<http://www.davros.org/homeoffice> and then go and look up the cited
law.
As far as the police are concerned, you're going to either have to take
my word or talk to them yourself.
>I have to be honest and say that I did not like your other two posts,
Then you're being over-touchy, I'm afraid.
>> If, on the other hand, you are setting yourself up as a vigilante who
>> deliberately seeks the material out, you are putting yourself in a
>> *very* risky position. If others are sending you the material to
>> "assess", you are both at risk.
[...]
>I don't like the word 'vigilante' either, but I must accept that it is more
>accurate than 'moderator' on some occasions, always providing you accept
>that none of our group takes the law into their own hands.
Accepted, except that deciding that you are going to download child porn
in order to catch the people posting it *is* taking the law into your
own hands, because the law says you can't do that.
>I did not 'set
>myself up' either as moderator or vigilante, instead I was invited to join
>with others.
An inimical body would treat your acceptance as "setting yourself up".
>I don't 'seek out' any of the material I find objectionable.
>Much is posted where I choose to be, and more is brought to my attention by
>individuals who are not in a position to do anything about it.
If you come across it, you aren't seeking it out. If you follow pointers
sent to you by others, and sent to you *because* it is illegal material,
you are "seeking it out" as far as the law will be concerned.
>We do not exchange material between us. If I find, or I am lead to
>something which I know will interest another or others, then I email details
>of where I found it, and they take what they need.
Then they are committing the offence of possession, and you are probably
committing an incitement or accessory offence. I am not a lawyer, but
this is how I believe that part of the law works.
>We have some contact with organisations which act as intermediaries, but I
>have also posted hard copy files in letterboxes,
Police letterboxes, or what ? In either case you are very likely going
the wrong way about it.
>> If you come somewhere between these two, you perhaps need to talk to
>> your local police force *before* finding yourself in trouble. If you
>> wish to email me in confidence, I may be able to assist further.
>Me replyto isn't spam trapped.
No it isn't; I was mislead by my software.
>If you feel that I didn't go too far with
>your character assassination, then please feel free to email me at the
>replyto address.
I might do that once I've caught up with this thread.
Clive D.W. Feather
<rou...@nospam.postoffice.co.uk> writes
>>They are far better passing it to the
>>Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk), who can deal with
>>relevant law enforcement authorities.
>Does this mean that the ISPs with whom you are connected are already
>censoring newsfeeds based on your (or some unelected police officer's) view
>of what is illegal?
IWF sends ISPs notifications which, in essence, say: "we believe that
knowing possession of article <12...@some.stupid.twit> is an offence
under the laws concerning child porn". The ISP can choose to trust this
statement or to form their own opinion, and they can decide whether to
delete the material or to leave it available to their customers.
This process may or may not match your description. I will say that,
unlike the Obscene Publications Act, the laws on child porn are pretty
clear as to what is or isn't illegal and I have rarely had difficulty in
reaching a decision.
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>In the past week, I have lodged complaints against two particular images
>posted to uk.~ newsgroups from an .ru source (.ru = Russia) One posting
>was cancelled by my isp and several others, the other was not. It would
>appear that in their view, a photograph of a10 or 11 year old girl
>performing oral sex on a boy of similar age is offensive, but a photograph
>of a girl of around 13 performing oral sex on a much older man is not, yet
>it is my understanding that posession of either picture would be an offence
>within the UK, whether the picture was kept for private use or posted to
>others.
>Unfortunately, some ISP's will accept cancels, others will not, so other
>factors are involved, and not just our 'requests'.
Here we see the problem with your approach. The ISPs don't know who you
are (if they do, expect a knock on the door one day), so they have no
reason to trust your judgement. I doubt they were judging on the basis
of "offensive" but rather on their understanding of the law.
Or it could be that they completely ignored your complaints, but that
one (but not the other) picture appeared in an IWF report.
You would do a lot better by simply passing on your complaints to IWF
and letting them deal with it. Apart from anything else:
- consistent standards will be used;
- most UK ISPs will be notified in a timely manner;
- evidence for the police to use can be built up properly.
>A Russian
>speaking colleague investigated the isp to read their Terms of Service, and
>discovered that there are no rules covering the content of postings, or of
>spamming newsgroups.
English law would say that this does *not* make it okay to post illegal-
to-possess material. Russian law might be different, but I suspect not.
Clive D.W. Feather
<rou...@nospam.postoffice.co.uk> writes
>According to a policeman on Channel 5 the other night, it is not an offence
>to view porn, but it is to 'publish' it, by passing it on to others.
(1) The laws for child pornography are different from those for other
pornography.
(2) The laws for other pornography are extremely unclear.
(3) That policeman was Martin Jauch, who is in charge of the Clubs &
Vice unit of the Metropolitan police. This may be enough of a statement
for some; for others, I will point out that he was Inspector French's
boss at the relevant time.
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>The senior police officer[1] I spoke with this morning wasn't aware that
>individuals are willing or able to gather information to pass on to the
>police, but he said something along the following lines;
>
>"I view it as a matter of intent. If an individual is collecting this
>information in order to pass it to the authorities, then no offence is being
>committed,
Others would disagree with you.
>Now there's a man with an open mind
I told you.
>"This will not affect the pound in your pocket." Harold Wilson
He was right. It remained worth 20 shillings.
Clive D.W. Feather
<c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>But then the IWF would be storing the material on their computers "for
>assessment". Is that legal?
Yes. Because a court would undoubtedly (see below) accept that IWF had a
valid purpose for doing this.
>Surely if the IWF are allowed to do that, then
>so is the questioner.
A practical difference is that ministers, of both this and previous
governments, have stood up in Parliament and stated that IWF doing this
is a good thing. Is this the case for the questioner ?
Clive D.W. Feather
writes
>}BTW, can you retrieve headers using Linux / Agent? I don't know, which is
>}why I am asking, and I have a spare PC and a copy of the Linux OS which I
>}would like to experiment with.
>
>If this is an example of your level of competence, then you are dangerously
>out of your depth, sunshine. If I was plod I would be on my way round your
>place to "check you out"
While I wouldn't put it the way that {R} does, he does make a good
point: you are *not* showing the technical expertise necessary to
investigate in the safest (for you) way, and you are making yourself
look like a target for police investigation.
If you don't know how to drive raw NNTP, you do *not* have the skills
necessary to track down the people producing this stuff.
Alexander Baron
cl...@demon.net "Clive D.W. Feather" writes:
> >Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:S5kCmJJT...@romana.davros.org...
> >> In article <p_p04.1232$VO.4...@nnrp3.clara.net>, savage <S>
> >> <gunsmith@@Freeuk.com> writes
> >
Nice posting.
--
Alexander Baron,
E-Mail A_B...@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK
"He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself
the accomplice of liars and forgers." - Charles Peguy
obscurity
[warning: this article written whilst tripping; if it makes any sense at
all, this is purely coincidence :)]
> In article <%i214.1666$r41....@nnrp3.clara.net>, savage <S>
> <gunsmith@?.com> writes
Note the domain name here.
> >Sorry, this is gonna be a long one, but it is worth reading, cos it shows
> >exactly what you are......
> >
> >Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:S5kCmJJT...@romana.davros.org...
> >> In article <p_p04.1232$VO.4...@nnrp3.clara.net>, savage <S>
> >> <gunsmith@@Freeuk.com> writes
> >
> >Please don't amend or delete my email address. Ta.
>
> I haven't. Your postings contain the header lines:
>
> Reply-To: "savage <S>" <guns...@freeuk.com>
> From: "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com>
>
> My software has interpreted them in that way. Whether it ought to be
> adding extra quote marks because of your odd "name" is an interesting
> question.
I think the problem is not the quote marks, but the fact that your
newsreading software has translated 'gunsmith@@freeuk.com' into
'gunsmith@?.com'. My personal opinion is that anybody with two @s in their
From: line is asking for trouble, and shouldn't argue with whatever way
other people's newsreaders decide to handle this. I just thought it might
help to clarify what savage <S> is complaining about. Although, thinking
about it, he or she is quite capable of clarifying it anyway, and I don't
really know why I'm writing this. Ah, well. Just ignore me, I'll go away in
a minute...
--
obscurity.
"Only the great masters of style ever succeed in being obscure." - Oscar Wilde
Clive D.W. Feather
<obsc...@obscure.org> writes
Indeed.
>> Reply-To: "savage <S>" <guns...@freeuk.com>
>> From: "savage <S>" <gunsmith@@freeuk.com>
[...]
>I think the problem is not the quote marks, but the fact that your
>newsreading software has translated 'gunsmith@@freeuk.com' into
>'gunsmith@?.com'.
So it would seem. But not in every case.
>My personal opinion is that anybody with two @s in their
>From: line is asking for trouble, and shouldn't argue with whatever way
>other people's newsreaders decide to handle this.
Indeed; I'm fairly sure that it's not a conformant line. I'll point the
newsreader author at this sub-thread.
Clive D.W. Feather
<gunsmith@?.com> writes
>> You don't _have_ to download the material in question, you do it because
>> you wish to. Nobody forces you to download anything.
>How then would I continue to moderate the newsgroup?
It is not usual for moderators to need to download the group, since the
only things appearing there should be what you posted.
>This does arise, and quite frequently too. Again, how would I moderate the
>group and lodge complaints without downloading the post to retrieve the
>headers?
This does not require you to download the body.
>The headers are proof, and to complain without them is a pointless
>exercise because the originating isp can do nothing.
Given the message-ID, and nothing else, the originating ISP is quite
able to look at the headers (and internal logs) for themselves.
>> If someone else sees something which is illegal, why can he not report
>> it himself?
>This may come as a surprise, but not everyone can get the headers to lodge
>such a complaint,
If the person can identify the article unambiguously, then that's enough
for IWF to investigate.
>BTW, can you retrieve headers using Linux / Agent? I don't know, which is
>why I am asking, and I have a spare PC and a copy of the Linux OS which I
>would like to experiment with.
If you can run telnet, you can retrieve them, as others have pointed
out.
>I don't believe that anyone can be 'officially sanctioned' to investigate
>porn or child abuse in this way,
You believe wrong, in that IWF are officially sanctioned.
>> but it would be exacly the sort of thing someone
>> who wanted to look at dodgy material would use as a cover for his
>> activities.
>Eventually, all the material I collect is forwarded to the relevant
>authority whenever possible.
It would *still* make great cover, because now you have an "explanation"
as to why you have all this illegal material. Except that the police
will take the view of "no honour among thieves".
Tim Martin
> (2) The laws for other pornography are extremely unclear.
No they aren't extremely unclear; there aren't any laws at all affecting
pornography.
There are laws about obscene and indecent material; but for those laws, it
is irrelevant whether the material is pornographic.
Tim
Jon Rouse
>You believe wrong, in that IWF are officially sanctioned.
Under which Act?
Clive D.W. Feather
punola.screaming.net> writes
>> (2) The laws for other pornography are extremely unclear.
>No they aren't extremely unclear; there aren't any laws at all affecting
>pornography.
Yes there are:
>There are laws about obscene and indecent material; but for those laws, it
>is irrelevant whether the material is pornographic.
But it is relevant to the pornography whether or not it is obscene
and/or indecent, which was my point. You have it the wrong way round (a
common logical fallacy).
Clive D.W. Feather
<rou...@nospam.postoffice.co.uk> writes
>>You believe wrong, in that IWF are officially sanctioned.
>Under which Act?
Official sanction doesn't require an Act.
Charles Lindsey
>In article <FM24B...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
><c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>>Surely if the IWF are allowed to do that, then
>>so is the questioner.
>A practical difference is that ministers, of both this and previous
>governments, have stood up in Parliament and stated that IWF doing this
>is a good thing. Is this the case for the questioner ?
I don't think what ministers stand up and say in parliament has the effect
of changing the law. It may have the effect of encouraging the Police/CPS
to prosecute or not in particular cases.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Tim Martin
> In article <384af17f$0$69...@diablo.uninet.ee>, Tim Martin <compunola@com
> punola.screaming.net> writes
> >There are laws about obscene and indecent material; but for those laws,
it
> >is irrelevant whether the material is pornographic.
>
> But it is relevant to the pornography whether or not it is obscene
> and/or indecent, which was my point. You have it the wrong way round (a
> common logical fallacy).
You have it backwards.
You are arguing that there are laws controlling pornography, because there
are laws governing obscenity and some pornography is obscene.
By your argument, there are laws governing cooking recipes, because there
are laws governing obscenity and some cooking recipes are obscene.
Tim
Clive D.W. Feather
writes
>}>Eventually, all the material I collect is forwarded to the relevant
>}>authority whenever possible.
>}
>}It would *still* make great cover, because now you have an "explanation"
>}as to why you have all this illegal material. Except that the police
>}will take the view of "no honour among thieves".
>
>this fuckwit goes to jail, and is buggered for real.
Exactly (in case it wasn't clear).
Jon Rouse
>Official sanction doesn't require an Act.
So really you're no better than this guy who is a self appointed censor.
Pot, kettle , black I think.
Clive D.W. Feather
punola.screaming.net> writes
>You have it backwards.
I don't think so, but I don't see much point in progressing this
argument very far. I'll comment on your posting, but then I'm going to
drop this discussion.
>You are arguing that there are laws controlling pornography, because there
>are laws governing obscenity and some pornography is obscene.
Yes. More importantly, any publisher of pornography has to consider
these laws because some material is treated by courts as obscene
*because* it is pornographic. And at the end of the day this is the bit
that the original poster needs to know.
>By your argument, there are laws governing cooking recipes, because there
>are laws governing obscenity and some cooking recipes are obscene.
But not because they're cooking recipes. It would be because they
require you to sacrifice a live cockerel in the stewpot, or to stir the
mix as part of an orgy, or suchlike.
Clive D.W. Feather
<c...@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>>A practical difference is that ministers, of both this and previous
>>governments, have stood up in Parliament and stated that IWF doing this
>>is a good thing. Is this the case for the questioner ?
>
>I don't think what ministers stand up and say in parliament has the effect
>of changing the law. It may have the effect of encouraging the Police/CPS
>to prosecute or not in particular cases.
More to the point, it indicates that (1) the CPS is likely to take a
view of "not in the public interest to prosecute", and (2) that the
"possessing for a proper purpose" defence is likely to work.
So while it doesn't change the law, it does (see item 2 above) affect
how the law is interpreted.
Clive D.W. Feather
<rou...@nospam.postoffice.co.uk> writes
>>Official sanction doesn't require an Act.
>So really you're no better than this guy who is a self appointed censor.
>Pot, kettle , black I think.
I haven't claimed to be better than him. I've pointed out that he is
likely to be prosecuted if caught, whereas the police *know* that IWF
possess child pornography, but aren't going to prosecute. From the
practical aspect of his original question, that's important.
At law it comes down, IIRC, to "possession for a proper purpose". Who
defines the latter, and with what powers ?
Tim Martin
Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> Yes. More importantly, any publisher of pornography has to consider
> these laws because some material is treated by courts as obscene
> *because* it is pornographic. And at the end of the day this is the bit
> that the original poster needs to know.
There is no material that is considered obscene because it is pornographic.
If a court considers material obscene, it is because the material is judged
likely to deprave and corrupt, not because it is sexually stimulating.
Tim