Undernet can eliminate child porn channels but refuses too.
PSB
True they can,
By their own admission, they are well organized. They know the channels,
heck they even know who to op when the child molesters lose their
channels by simply using UWorld. The lastest irc op to assist and help
child molesters is ArchDemon. This freak gave child molesters back a
channel that the christians had taken over and shut down. Oh, well
perhaps the Undernet motto should be "the official channel of child
molesters and child pix trading".
Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
Perhaps Undernet needs to act responsible before governments have to step
in.
Keep the fight up to save our children.
PSB
Jeremy Nelson
PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>True they can,
>
>By their own admission, they are well organized. They know the channels,
>heck they even know who to op when the child molesters lose their
>channels by simply using UWorld. The lastest irc op to assist and help
>child molesters is ArchDemon.
Awwww. Poor RevWhite and #!!!!!!!!!!!niggers. Did you forget to kick/ban
him before calling for "coons" to "lynch"? Did he show you up?
>This freak gave child molesters back a
>channel that the christians had taken over and shut down. Oh, well
You mean that _you_ too over. Thats why he "gave it back" because
we all know youre pond sucking scum. But its _very_ entertaining
to see you squirm becuase you know you just are not good enough to
take over a channel and be able to keep it without making some boneheaded
mistake that gives you away. Id be more inclined to ask why you have
this almost singular fascisnation with owning porn channels. Is it
because they wont give you any when you asked, so you took them over?
So why dont you just admit that you cant take over channels, and that
you keep being shown up by people who have more savvy then you do?
>Perhaps Undernet needs to act responsible before governments have to step
>in.
Last time i looked, lynching "coons" was a felony. I vote we step in
and shut down #!!!!!!!!!!!niggers first.
>Keep the fight up to save our children.
What children? Youre a 23 year old with sweaty palms sitting in your
parent's basement!
At least i know youre reading this newsgroup. This would be a nice troll
if i didnt know you werent already so pathetic. ;-)
-hop
Jason T. Nelson
In article <32112F...@worldnet.att.net>,
No they can't; why doesn't your precious AT&T remove all those terrible
900 numbers from their telephone network?
>By their own admission, they are well organized. They know the channels,
>heck they even know who to op when the child molesters lose their
>channels by simply using UWorld. The lastest irc op to assist and help
>child molesters is ArchDemon. This freak gave child molesters back a
>channel that the christians had taken over and shut down. Oh, well
>perhaps the Undernet motto should be "the official channel of child
>molesters and child pix trading".
Sometimes I wonder why I post to these threads; maybe I'm an optimist. Deep
within the recesses of my mind I genuinely hope that this peon will
learn the error of his ways and get some facts before he spews his garbage
and crap. Maybe this is an elaberate troll and I'm looking pretty foolish :)
You make one huge mistake in your logic, oh moronic one. You said that some
op helped "child molesters" (BTW, in the United States this can be
construed as libel and you COULD go to court because you really have no
evidence that "child molestation" occurs on certain channels) regain a channel
that happened to have a name that might suggest that act to some people.
Then you mentioned off-handedly that you and your fellow "Christians" had
taken it over. This is a NO NO you idiot. Maybe your "Christian" motto should
be "the official breaker of rules when they must be twisted to fit our
agenda".
>Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
>channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
>file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
>last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
>guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
Why are you sending pictures of horses? Am I to read something into this? :)
>Perhaps Undernet needs to act responsible before governments have to step
>in.
Perhaps you should get a clue before you open your fucking mouth anymore
on Usenet.
>Keep the fight up to save our children.
Keep the fight up to lock cluebies who threaten to remove freedom of speech
and expression away.
--
Jason T. Nelson ja...@jlc.net
Wintrmute on IRC (MIME mail ok!)
http://www.jlc.net/~jason/
"How can one insulated wire bring so much happiness?" -Homer Simpson
J. Carey
:In article <32112F...@worldnet.att.net>,
:PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:>True they can,
:
:>By their own admission, they are well organized. They know the channels,
:>heck they even know who to op when the child molesters lose their
:>channels by simply using UWorld. The lastest irc op to assist and help
:>child molesters is ArchDemon. This freak gave child molesters back a
:>channel that the christians had taken over and shut down. Oh, well
:>perhaps the Undernet motto should be "the official channel of child
:>molesters and child pix trading".
:
:
:>Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
:>channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
:>file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
:>last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
:>guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
:
:
:>Perhaps Undernet needs to act responsible before governments have to step
:>in.
:
:>Keep the fight up to save our children.
I'd bet that about 3% of those trading pictures on irc are
actually child molestors. These channels should be the least of your
worries if you're trying to stop child porn.
PSB
Because this is were it starts, nearly all child molesters start the with
porn, but then they need more of a fix, thus our children get recruited
by these freaks.
PSB
Keith D. Tyler
PSB (st...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: child molesters is ArchDemon. This freak gave child molesters back a
: perhaps the Undernet motto should be "the official channel of child
: molesters and child pix trading".
Or better yet, "fuck the arrogant self-righteous fanatic christians" who
think they're special because they are religious or something.
I missed the part in Leviticus about "all those in My name shalt netsplit
and take over the IRC."
Blessed are those who takeover IRC channels, for they shall inherit AOL.
--
"I know it's hard to prognosticate his future at this stage, but if he's
going to remain 0.4 gram and six-sided for the rest of his life, I'd say
euthanasia is our best bet." - Mark Leyner
Doug McLaren
In article <321254...@worldnet.att.net>,
PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
...
| > I'd bet that about 3% of those trading pictures on irc are
| > actually child molestors. These channels should be the least of your
| > worries if you're trying to stop child porn.
|
| Because this is were it starts, nearly all child molesters start the with
| porn, but then they need more of a fix, thus our children get recruited
| by these freaks.
Of course, the people who are into the kiddie porn get started on
regular porn ... that's where it starts.
Or is it? They get started on the porn by their hormones. Often
these very same hormones will drive them to rape, have unprotected
sex, and possibly walk even walk around gawking at women!
Better just castrate all the men to make sure our children are protected!
You first, of course. I certainly think any future children of mine
would have more to fear from people like you than people like me ...
Aren't slipperly slope arguments fun ?
As for Dalnet's anti-porn policy, it should be interesting the first
time they miss some porn being given to a minor, who's mother finds
out, and decides to start suing somebody ...
Didn't somebody even say that Dalnet has CEO's, or something similar?
Ooh, she even knows exactly who to sue!
At least Undernet and Efnet server admins don't try to police traffic,
and could therefore claim common carrier status ...
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@physics.utexas.edu
Ah say, son, you're about as sharp as a bowlin' ball.
"They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!"
Keith D. Tyler
PSB (st...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Because this is were it starts, nearly all child molesters start the with
: by these freaks.
Kind of like the way freaks like you get recruited by Ralph Reed.
Kongen
PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
> channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
> file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
> last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
> guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
so you're saying channeltakeovers are accepted on Dalnet?, i thought
that was one of the things they're trying to prevent on pretty much
every ircnet around.
Kongen...
--
- irc: Kongen (@#Undermac (http://www.orci.com/undermac) -
- Your worst friend, and your best enemy -
- Armageddon....bring it on please -
Jesus Christ
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:46:20 -0700, PSB a.k.a. RevWhite
<st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> True they can,
Alright, Medammit. Let's get something straight. The Undernet can
*not* regulate the actions of those who use it. *I* know who the child
molesters are, and that's all that matters. So get off it.
Btw, don't be too surprised if you wake up one morning with your arms and
legs reversed. I hope you have nimble toes.
Timothy Barbeisch
PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>By their own admission, they are well organized. They know the channels,
>heck they even know who to op when the child molesters lose their
>channels by simply using UWorld. The lastest irc op to assist and help
>child molesters is ArchDemon. This freak gave child molesters back a
>channel that the christians had taken over and shut down. Oh, well
>perhaps the Undernet motto should be "the official channel of child
>molesters and child pix trading".
UWorld is a automatic autoop/deop that occur's after a Netsplit, or a
method of reopping X, or W. And undernet is'nt a channel, is is a IRC
network.
>Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
>channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
>file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
>last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
>guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
Then you must have a lot of free time on your hand's. How do you take
over the channels?? You flood them?? Another great waste of network
bandwidth. (it's a waste, no matter who you flood) As for the IRC
Ops helping the "Child molesters", it really would'nt matter if they
did or did'nt. There is no point in the "christians" taking over the
so called "child molesting" channel's, as they can create a new
channel, in about 3 seconds. Don't waste the Network bandwidth of
tring to flood them off, and take over channel's. And just what do
you do with them when you have taken them over??? Waste more
bandwidth?
>Perhaps Undernet needs to act responsible before governments have to step
>in.
That's the problem. How do you know what channel's are dealing in
child porn, and what ones are dealing in "legel porn"? Undernet only
disallow's child pic trading, they fully allow "legel" porn trading.
(as you can guess by the fact that #sexpics has a X/W bot) I have'nt
seen a channel yet with the topic "Child Molesting in here" so how is
Undernet supposed to know what channel's it is going on in?? They
don't have the manpower, to send out IRCOp's to "check" on every
channel, on the entire network.
___________________
/ Timothy Barbeisch \____________________________________
| |
| Email: bied...@tri-town.net |
| Homepage URL: http://www.tri-town.net/~biederkc |
| Quote: "Make it so." |
| IRC Nick: TrekTim |
| Other Nick: ID4_Rocks |
| Ex-Aol User since: 6/29/96 |
|________________________________________________________|
Adam
On 14 Aug 1996 15:47:36 -0500, dou...@linux3.ph.utexas.edu (Doug
McLaren) wrote:
>As for Dalnet's anti-porn policy, it should be interesting the first
>time they miss some porn being given to a minor, who's mother finds
>out, and decides to start suing somebody ...
Doug.. no disrespect intended but have you actually bothered to read
the AUP for DALnet?
http://www.dal.net/documentation/aup.html
If you want to be sure. ;)
L8r,
Biffa
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Adam Edwards EMail a...@dynaman.demon.co.uk |
| Biffa on IRC - Efnet/DALnet |
| DALnet "Fly the Friendlier SkIRCs" http://www.dal.net |
| DALnet newsgroup Q's asked/answered in alt.irc.dalnet |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Tony Miller
dou...@linux3.ph.utexas.edu (Doug McLaren) wrote:
>Aren't slipperly slope arguments fun ?
I think they're a blast.
>As for Dalnet's anti-porn policy, it should be interesting the first
>time they miss some porn being given to a minor, who's mother finds
>out, and decides to start suing somebody ...
As I've been watching this "discussion" (flamefest) about DALnet's
policy regarding illegal activity, I've come to a conclusion that it's
not necessarily a bad thing. I'm somewhat libertarian, but a
law-abiding libertarian.
If you were on a common carrier, and an operator overheard you making
plans to molest a child, would that operator have the responsibility
to call the authorities?
And if you saw a drug deal going down on your neighborhood, and
decided to call the cops, could you be sued if one time you didn't
call the cops?
I think the non-tolerance of blatantly illegal activity is a breath of
fresh air. I'm interested in seeing how the enforcement is played out
:-)
>Didn't somebody even say that Dalnet has CEO's, or something similar?
>Ooh, she even knows exactly who to sue!
It would be an interesting case study in constitutional law.
>At least Undernet and Efnet server admins don't try to police traffic,
>and could therefore claim common carrier status ...
I don't see where DALnet promises to eliminate all illegal activity.
--
My opinion and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee...
Trikky T
PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> Wrote, in his (or her) infinite wisdom:
>Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
>channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
>file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
>last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
>guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
If the channels are so objectionable, why do you frequent them? Seems
that you're speaking of your own ilk and if you're not an open
paedophile, you sure do want to be.
Hell...there are channels in support of extra-marital sex, which I
personally object too. However, I don't frequent the channels to find
out what they're up too simply because I don't want to view their
discussions.
It's called choice, my friend. You have the choice to do what you
want, as they do. I and others get the impression you are trying to
enforce your opinion upon them, but I am sure you would be the first
to remind us of your right to free speech if we told you to just shut
the truck up.
The way I figure it, you frequent these channles to whch you so loudly
object for just one reason...they intrigue you.
Regards,
Trikky T. (Trevor L. Wilson) gday...@iceonline.com
Vancouver's Internet Direct- The ISP to Stay Away From!
http://iceonline.com/home/gdaymate/warn.htm
WARNING: Payment is required for use of the above Email address
for unsolicited commercial Email or as part of a mailing list for
any purpose. Senders of such Email are deemed to have read and
agreed to the details outlined on the internet World Wide Web at
the following URL: http://iceonline.com/home/gdaymate/email.htm
J. Carey
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:34:24 -0700, PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
:J. Carey wrote:
:>
:> :In article <32112F...@worldnet.att.net>,
:> :PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:> :>True they can,
:>
:> :
:>
:> I'd bet that about 3% of those trading pictures on irc are
:> actually child molestors. These channels should be the least of your
:> worries if you're trying to stop child porn.
:
:Because this is were it starts, nearly all child molesters start the with
:porn, but then they need more of a fix, thus our children get recruited
:by these freaks.
:
:PSB
Really, how do you know so much about child molestors?
Someone posted before stating that you were actually intrigued with
this, and I'm starting to believe it.
Bob Officer
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:46:20 -0700, PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
>channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
>file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
>last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
>guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
Horses...? do you mean trojan horses or virii?
>Perhaps Undernet needs to act responsible before governments have to step
>in.
Maybe you need to reread the laws... anyone that knowingly transmits
virii or anything that could damage or diasables a computer has
committed a federal felony.
perhaps I should forward this statement to your provider and seen how
long your keep you account.
Bob Officer | bo...@s3.sonnet.com
Tracy, California |
| Place [RHO] in subject line
|
Ise
In article <4utoj9$k...@shore.shore.net>, rom...@shore.net says...
>
>PSB (st...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>: Because this is were it starts, nearly all child molesters start the with
>: by these freaks.
>
>
or Jim Jones
Ise
PSB:
any arguement you have against porn is negated by 2 facts:
1. You take over channels (which I hate)
2. You seem to be a racist (which I REALLY hate)
If you're not a racist come on here and prove you're not!
As for any channel were there is porn trading: DON'T GO IN IT! The last time
I checked I was still able to choose what channel I wanted to go in. And I
was able to /ignore anyone that I wanted to too!
Salt
I'll get on my soapbox one last time.
CHILD PORN is unlike anything else on the net. It's very existance is
I-L-L-E-G-A-L. This is not a choice issue. What part of 'illegal' do you
'free speech' advocates not understand. To possess or distribute child
pornagraphy is a federal crime (at least last I looked, hell by now the
Republicans may have repealed it). Buy analogy your 'you don't have to look'
argument says I shouldn't worry about drug dealing on my street corner unless
I'm interested in buying.
I can only think that advocates for 'live and let live' for the child porn
issue have no children. While I have no love for restriction on the rights of
people to express themselves this is playing with matches in a puddle of
gasoline. What consenting adults want to do is none of my business, if you
want to express your favorite methods of pleasing/torturing your partner(s) I
may not agree but THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS. What happens with 'our' children is
very much mine, I've seen too much damage done. When it hits home or you have
a firstperson encounter, this will no longer be an esoteric argument, no
longer a 'free speech' right it becomes time to 'lock & load'. This is a
singular case, to me, that you can't err too much on the conservative side.
If we don't care for our young we have no future as a society or species.
Don't know about you but I want them to be good upstanding taxpayers so I can
retire on their earnings.
Nuff said,
Salt
In article <Dw6wA...@iceonline.com>, gday...@iceonline.com says...
>
>PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> Wrote, in his (or her) infinite wisdom:
>
>>Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
>>channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
>>file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
>>last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
>>guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
>
Jeremy Nelson
Well, since youve obviously not been paying attention to the discussion,
ill take this opportunity to tell you why youre misinformed.
>CHILD PORN is unlike anything else on the net. It's very existance is
>I-L-L-E-G-A-L. This is not a choice issue. What part of 'illegal' do you
>'free speech' advocates not understand. To
This is a straw man. The "free speech" advocates are not advocating
child porn, but rather attacking the hysteria and paranoia of those
who would throw our free speech away because of their supposition of
wildly misplaced blame. The presence of child porn on the internet is
not the fault of anyone but he who owns it.
If the government isnt going after Sprint and MCI, who have been documented
as a distributing medium for child porn, what makes you think they have any
interest in irc servers, which have no part in the transmission? How much
the more, how does any reasonable argument conclude that those who would
not be bandwagoneers for the hysteria are somehow advocating the behavior?
>[To] possess or distribute child pornagraphy is a federal crime
But the point still remains that the undernet, nor any other irc network
possesses or distributes child pornography. The transmission is purely
through third party medium, and it still hasnt been explained to me why
irc is liable for that. Another analogy:
I send a letter to a friend over postal mail. In the mail, i say "I have
a package for you. Ill send it via fedex". I then send him a kiddie porn
video. Is the postal office criminally negligent for allowing the
transmission of child pornography? How much more then can an irc network
or administrator be liable?
I will not yeild my free speech rights because someone who has a documented
grudge against the undernet alleges vapourously that illegal activities
occur there. Never mind the dcoumented fact that this person has "overlooked"
these same offenses on dalnet, saying that they are "negligible". Never mind
that the person has multiple times exhorted people to go to dalnet and leave
the "evil" undernet. Never mind that the person is a documented flooder,
ICMP bomber, racist, and maybe even a sexual harraser and child molester.
I will not allow a person who is abusing the sensitive issue of child
pornography to use it as a cover for his own criminal activity.
-hop
Kaehno
I was reading this post and I didn't even know who the author was until I
scrolled back up.. Nice job hop.. but read on.
On 19 Aug 1996, Jeremy Nelson wrote:
> This is a straw man. The "free speech" advocates are not advocating
> child porn, but rather attacking the hysteria and paranoia of those
> who would throw our free speech away because of their supposition of
> wildly misplaced blame. The presence of child porn on the internet is
> not the fault of anyone but he who owns it.
Um, hello? Why can't people see this? Maybe I'm missing the appropriate
way to say it... but you say it later on, so I didn't have to think of a
way. :)
> If the government isnt going after Sprint and MCI, who have been documented
> as a distributing medium for child porn, what makes you think they have any
> interest in irc servers, which have no part in the transmission? How much
> the more, how does any reasonable argument conclude that those who would
> not be bandwagoneers for the hysteria are somehow advocating the behavior?
Simple, there are those that are happier with hysteria and the failure to
take responsibility in their own children's development. Knowing that
these things exist does not change the fact that they exist. However,
those that would actually see a physical manifestation of their fears
would see it as growing wildly out of control. This isn't the case. It's
simply that people are now seeing the concrete (as much as IRC can be)
presence as opposed to the more abstract idea of just acknowledging that
it exists.
> But the point still remains that the undernet, nor any other irc network
> possesses or distributes child pornography. The transmission is purely
> through third party medium, and it still hasnt been explained to me why
> irc is liable for that. Another analogy:
> I send a letter to a friend over postal mail. In the mail, i say "I have
> a package for you. Ill send it via fedex". I then send him a kiddie porn
> video. Is the postal office criminally negligent for allowing the
> transmission of child pornography? How much more then can an irc network
> or administrator be liable?
This is the analogy I was looking for. Thanks.. I'll remember this one.
This is EXACTLY how it is. I don't understand why some people don't get
it. If they want censorship, they should get on AOL.
> I will not yeild my free speech rights because someone who has a documented
> grudge against the undernet alleges vapourously that illegal activities
> occur there. Never mind the dcoumented fact that this person has "overlooked"
> these same offenses on dalnet, saying that they are "negligible". Never mind
> that the person has multiple times exhorted people to go to dalnet and leave
> the "evil" undernet. Never mind that the person is a documented flooder,
> ICMP bomber, racist, and maybe even a sexual harraser and child molester.
PSB is nothing more than a mere puppet of those that have greater agendas
(and yes, I can safely assume that it is PSB we're talking about ;-).) I
doubt the poor fool has any idea of what's going on. As for his crimes,
they are just another physical (in the world of IRC) manifestation of
people's fears. He played on the right chords of those that are looking
to start a 'taming of the net' and it worked quite well for those that
work looking for it. When you pray on the innocent and the uneducated,
you make it easy to continue to do so.
> I will not allow a person who is abusing the sensitive issue of child
> pornography to use it as a cover for his own criminal activity.
Interesting point... I pray that you're wrong - for his sake.
----
Lead Technical Support Specialist
IRC Administrator
ico...@goodnet.com / irca...@goodnet.com
ico...@netzone.com
Salt
In article <4v9uml$8...@test-sun.erols.com>, is...@erols.com says...
It misses the point that child porn in any form is illegal even the 'mere'
possession of. The best defense against racism is to shine the light on it.
For me, the best defense against child molesters/pornagraphers is 'kill'm all
and let God sort them out'. It is not just a matter of looking the other way.
It hurts our children and hurts us all.
Salt
Kaehno
On 19 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
> I'll get on my soapbox one last time.
*shoving off the soapbox* Ahem. One must not play in the mud if one
doesn't want to get dirty. No?
> pornagraphy is a federal crime (at least last I looked, hell by now the
> Republicans may have repealed it). Buy analogy your 'you don't have to look'
> argument says I shouldn't worry about drug dealing on my street corner unless
> I'm interested in buying.
Hrm.. so, I guess that means you can just go around 'looking' for trouble
too?
> I can only think that advocates for 'live and let live' for the child porn
> issue have no children. While I have no love for restriction on the rights of
Such general and sweeping statements invalidate your argument. When you
fail to take into account that you might be wrong, you fail to convince an
audience.
> people to express themselves this is playing with matches in a puddle of
> gasoline. What consenting adults want to do is none of my business, if you
> want to express your favorite methods of pleasing/torturing your partner(s) I
> may not agree but THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS. What happens with 'our' children is
> very much mine, I've seen too much damage done. When it hits home or you have
> a firstperson encounter, this will no longer be an esoteric argument, no
> longer a 'free speech' right it becomes time to 'lock & load'. This is a
> singular case, to me, that you can't err too much on the conservative side.
Hrm. So, what's wrong with telling the child, "NO, you will NOT do that
and so be it."? I have seen a few parents of late post saying that it's
the parents responsibility to police what their children do. Why can't
you do that? Or would you have someone else be paid to do your job?
> If we don't care for our young we have no future as a society or species.
> Don't know about you but I want them to be good upstanding taxpayers so I can
> retire on their earnings.
If you don't say no to your child and actually have some authority in
doing so, it wouldn't matter who's paying taxes or not. BTW, I wouldn't
want my tax money to go to some child's internet babysitter. You need
that, perhaps you shouldn't have your children on the Net. It's not a
nice place for those who would try to destroy it...
The very essence of the Internet will survive even your attempts to tame
it. The Internet by it's very idea is far more unpoliceable by one force
or even a government. It's up to the people that have the links to the
computers to enforce the laws. If you want to prevent your children from
seeing the wicked ways of the Internet, then control what they see. Don't
do that for the rest of the Internet just to please your own selfish
needs.
Brian Hauber
> I-L-L-E-G-A-L. This is not a choice issue. What part of 'illegal' do you
> Republicans may have repealed it). Buy analogy your 'you don't have to look'
> argument says I shouldn't worry about drug dealing on my street corner unless
> I'm interested in buying.
Last time I checked, the internet and the various irc networks wasn't just the
united states. What is illegal in the US is quite legal in other countries.
[-snip irrelevant parts-]
--
Brian Hauber bha...@pobox.com
wc on EFnet http://pobox.com/~bhauber
PGP fingerprint = DC 4C 06 41 04 72 A9 3A 35 82 4A 9E 19 16 13 27
Kaehno
On 20 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
> >Such general and sweeping statements invalidate your argument. When you
> >fail to take into account that you might be wrong, you fail to convince an
> >audience.
> 3) I truly have missed your point here. I state this as opinion not fact.
My point is that you made a general (very general at that) statement that
was wide sweeping and could never be true of everyone in the group you
created. Einstein said it himself (not a direct quote - I think), "No
laws are absolute, including this one." By saying, "He/She/It doesn't
have children, that must be why they have this attitude," is not only
broad ranging, but inaccurate. What makes you think that? Just because
you happen to think that way? When will we get past the generalizations?
>
> 4) BOY DID YOU MISS THE BOAT. This not an issue of telling Johnnie not to
> play on the computer. In my case my child was molested at a certified day
> care. I know personally of other similar child abuse cases. Child porn is
> child abuse. This is first person and I hope you are never here. I won't go
Your problems are indeed real and I will not discount them. However, just
because of your problems, you don't need to start a witch hunt or
participate in one. I just keep hearing that quote from Aaron Satee (TNG)
about the first link forged..
> to details as to how much damage it has done to my child and my family, or the
> cost both financial and emotional. I do not hold the IRC carrier responsible
> (only if there is a way for him to be, and I agree it's probably undoable) but
> the people that are willing to do this to children MUST be stopped by any and
> all means necessary.
Your final statement is what they said about witches before they started
hunting for them. Many innocent people were killed because of attitudes
like yours. How many innocent people will fall under your path?
> The comments on 'hysteria' (elsewhere in the post)-- well I'll return to my
> previous statement - obviously someone doesn't have children. This in not
> hysteria, its spirit crushing mind numbing reality, want some? Just walk away
> and it too can be yours someday.
The reality of the situation is that this existed before, and it will
continue to exist. Cochroaches adapt to bug spray, so I'm willing to be
these perpetrators will find better ways to escape the law. You only
encourage it by what you do.
> As for my job as a parent, it is MY job. I don't ask for you to take
> responsiblity for it but 1) I ask you don't make it more difficult, and 2)
I can neither make it more difficult nor easier. It simply isn't my job.
> that by your action or inaction you don't endanger them. This 'tolerance' of
> kidde porn, or it's not my responsiblity, or hey I'm not to blame, doesn't cut
I'm sorry it's your personal vendetta to rid the world of such evils. PSB
could use your help.
> any ice with me. Instead of telling me why you can't do anything, why don't
> you suggest what you can do to slow or stop this evil. Its very existance is
> damaging whether my children ever enter this medium or not.
The existance of fire is not a dangerous thing. Yet, it's how we treat
fire that defines it's true threat. I simply state that porn's existance
in any medium is not a dangerous thing. It's how we react to it.
> Per my previous post this is not an academic/estoeric argument for me. Based
> on your comments it appears to me, this for you is. It must be nice. I hope
> it remains so.
Your assessment is incorrect. This is not an academic or esoterical
argument for me. Please do not make assumptions on my behalf. You'll
likely find me to be something of a surprise.
> 5) Good to know you recognize satire when you see it.
Thank you. I realize that wasn't a true compliment, but I take them when
and where I get them.
> 6) Even the 'Wild West' had sheriffs and marshals and yes I'm very selfish
> when it comes to my childrens safety. You want to take a mile in my shoes?
> BTW, to me, people are more important than the Internet.
Then be your own police officer in your _own_ territory. Police what your
children see. Don't make the rest of the territory abide by your laws
simply because you wish it. You'll find it much more profitable to be the
one that shows your children what's good and what's not on the net.
Salt
>
>*shoving off the soapbox* Ahem. One must not play in the mud if one
>doesn't want to get dirty. No?
>
1) I don't mind throwing mud if required but I would rather just disagree and
state why.
>Hrm.. so, I guess that means you can just go around 'looking' for trouble
>too?
>
2) I believe the best way to avoid trouble is to be where it ain't however
'evil persists when good men do nothing'.
>
>Such general and sweeping statements invalidate your argument. When you
>fail to take into account that you might be wrong, you fail to convince an
>audience.
>
3) I truly have missed your point here. I state this as opinion not fact.
>Hrm. So, what's wrong with telling the child, "NO, you will NOT do that
>and so be it."? I have seen a few parents of late post saying that it's
>the parents responsibility to police what their children do. Why can't
>you do that? Or would you have someone else be paid to do your job?
4) BOY DID YOU MISS THE BOAT. This not an issue of telling Johnnie not to
play on the computer. In my case my child was molested at a certified day
care. I know personally of other similar child abuse cases. Child porn is
child abuse. This is first person and I hope you are never here. I won't go
to details as to how much damage it has done to my child and my family, or the
cost both financial and emotional. I do not hold the IRC carrier responsible
(only if there is a way for him to be, and I agree it's probably undoable) but
the people that are willing to do this to children MUST be stopped by any and
all means necessary.
The comments on 'hysteria' (elsewhere in the post)-- well I'll return to my
previous statement - obviously someone doesn't have children. This in not
hysteria, its spirit crushing mind numbing reality, want some? Just walk away
and it too can be yours someday.
As for my job as a parent, it is MY job. I don't ask for you to take
responsiblity for it but 1) I ask you don't make it more difficult, and 2)
that by your action or inaction you don't endanger them. This 'tolerance' of
kidde porn, or it's not my responsiblity, or hey I'm not to blame, doesn't cut
any ice with me. Instead of telling me why you can't do anything, why don't
you suggest what you can do to slow or stop this evil. Its very existance is
damaging whether my children ever enter this medium or not.
Per my previous post this is not an academic/estoeric argument for me. Based
on your comments it appears to me, this for you is. It must be nice. I hope
it remains so.
>
>> If we don't care for our young we have no future as a society or species.
>> Don't know about you but I want them to be good upstanding taxpayers so I
can
>> retire on their earnings.
>
>If you don't say no to your child and actually have some authority in
>doing so, it wouldn't matter who's paying taxes or not. BTW, I wouldn't
>want my tax money to go to some child's internet babysitter. You need
>that, perhaps you shouldn't have your children on the Net. It's not a
>nice place for those who would try to destroy it...
>
5) Good to know you recognize satire when you see it.
>The very essence of the Internet will survive even your attempts to tame
>it. The Internet by it's very idea is far more unpoliceable by one force
>or even a government. It's up to the people that have the links to the
>computers to enforce the laws. If you want to prevent your children from
>seeing the wicked ways of the Internet, then control what they see. Don't
>do that for the rest of the Internet just to please your own selfish
>needs.
>
6) Even the 'Wild West' had sheriffs and marshals and yes I'm very selfish
when it comes to my childrens safety. You want to take a mile in my shoes?
BTW, to me, people are more important than the Internet.
Salt
Tommy Galia
Brian Hauber wrote:
>
> Salt (mric...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
> > I'll get on my soapbox one last time.
> >
> > CHILD PORN is unlike anything else on the net. It's very existance is
> > I-L-L-E-G-A-L. This is not a choice issue. What part of 'illegal' do you
> > 'free speech' advocates not understand. To possess or distribute child
> > pornagraphy is a federal crime (at least last I looked, hell by now the
> > Republicans may have repealed it). Buy analogy your 'you don't have to look'
> > argument says I shouldn't worry about drug dealing on my street corner unless
> > I'm interested in buying.
>
> Last time I checked, the internet and the various irc networks wasn't just the
> united states. What is illegal in the US is quite legal in other countries.
distributing child porn. The only way to get proof is to download what
is being offered witch if they live in the united states then they are
just as guilty as the people who are downloading it for pleasure.B:child
porn isn't illegal in all countrys.C:undernet is unmoderated and the
point of undernet is so that people can discuse what they want with
other people. If the ircops start moderating it then it will suck.
kim
Just a li'l tiny soapbox for me, thanx.
Yes child pornography and any harm to children is the absolutely worst
thing that can happen in the entire universe and anyone who harms a child
for their own pleasure should be humanely snuffed out as expediently as
possible.
But not at the expense of our right to free speech. And it is true that
the fed is using the fact of child pornography as a foil to play upon our
emotions and get us to cooperate with them in controlling irc and the
entire internet. The fed dosen't give a rat's ass about children. Hmm,
let me repeat that: The fed dosen't give a rat's ass about children!!!!!
Nor yours, not mine, probably not even thier own.
They _do_ have a very large vested interest in keeping tight reins on us
though. Controlling us is how they keep their power, and their power is
how they keep their stocks and bonds growing and their investments and
bank accounts fattening. And the internet is a free exchange of ideas
that they have no control over. Fear is a good way to control people.
"There are child molesters out there who want to get their hands on YOUR
children, so just give us your trust, let us handle everything, we'll take
care of it for you." Don't buy into it. A government that can take away
our right to free speech is a government that can use and abuse us any way
it wishes to, and don't think for a minute that there aren't any
pedophiles in Congress, even in your own favorite "party" of Congress.
More legislation is not the answer to any of our social problems.
Education and plain old evolution are the only things that are going to
solve our social ills. When we as a species are finally able to say and
mean things like, children matter! and, I really do love my neighbor as
myself, even though he's not even related to me, or the same race as me,
then we'll be free of all the things we're hoping mommy and daddy
government will fix for us now. Until then, you can legislate until the
cows come home and everything is still going to suck!
Yes, I know, it's a pretty impossible sounding dream and it's going to
take a lot of work - _without_ the help of mommy and daddy goverment to
help us make it come true - but it's the only thing we've got so we may as
well get started sometime, eh?
In the meantime, until you can grasp this concept, well, just fight the
CDC as well as you can. Oh, and you can join some of the fights for
children's rights, too, while you're at it!
--
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
| You are cordially invited to RoseWood for a cuppa. |
| http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5568 |
| ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
| Deep peace of the running wave to you |
| Deep peace of the silent stars |
| Deep peace of the flowing air to you |
| Deep peace of the quiet earth |
| __________________________________________________ |
Brian Hauber
> They _do_ have a very large vested interest in keeping tight reins on us
> though. Controlling us is how they keep their power, and their power is
> how they keep their stocks and bonds growing and their investments and
> bank accounts fattening. And the internet is a free exchange of ideas
> that they have no control over. Fear is a good way to control people.
> "There are child molesters out there who want to get their hands on YOUR
> children, so just give us your trust, let us handle everything, we'll take
> care of it for you." Don't buy into it. A government that can take away
> our right to free speech is a government that can use and abuse us any way
> it wishes to, and don't think for a minute that there aren't any
> pedophiles in Congress, even in your own favorite "party" of Congress.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING! TRUST NO ONE!
Kaehno
There is a high probability that this is a troll...but what the heck...
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Terrie wrote:
: I do not think that the US should try to censor the
: internet. The internet does not belong to any country.
This being said pretty much contradicts your post.
: That said, also the internet was not originally created as an
: entertainment medium, which it has now largely become. Children have a
: right to the internet just as much as anyone. The internet was
: originally an educational and communication tool. I sadly watch as that
: part of it slips away. Not that the entertainment part is bad, chatting
: is great! I totally love to connect with people.
Agreed on all counts.
: But if it was my IRC server, my machine, I would not in any way allow the
: formation of public or private channels that were set up to trade kiddie
: porn or lure young children. I used to list users in channels like these
: and put the users in my ignore file. I am not saying adult channels are
: bad, but these ones, we've all seen them, that are set up to entice
: children. It is sick. I was a victim of child abuse. And I think the
Stop right there. I'm noticing a trend here. The existance of said
channels is not a crime. They don't lure children. The children join
by choice - whether it's a good choice or not. We all make choices.
Some good, some bad. It's how we react to those consequences and make
future decisions that defines who we are and what we are.
: IRC server owners are slapping me in the face everytime they allow
: channels like that. One time I listed the users in one of these channels
: and found a 12 year old girl!!! She had a name like jesse12. So I
Well, then don't even get on IRC if you feel that way. If take it as a
personal attack against you that the IRC servers allow these channels,
don't bother to connect to them. No one is forcing you to connect, so
don't give the facade that they are.
Additionally, who says that a person's nick is really indicative of
their age? Kaehno989 would indicate that I'm 989 years old? (I feel
that old sometimes, but I think you see my point.)
: messaged her and asked her how old she was. She told me she was 12. I
: told her that she didnt need to be in that channel. She just told me she
: didn't think that the people there could hurt her because it was just the
: computer!! Yet she had her real name in her /whois. I didn't call an
Some people don't care about having their realname in the whois. What
about it? There are those in this world that could care less.
: IrCop, cause I knew it would be a waste of my time. But I was really
: depressed. I just hope it was really a 40 something guy from the fbi and
: not really a 12 year old girl! I don't list users anymore in
: these channels. It is too depressing for me. And gawd, why oh
You waste your time worrying about such things. You create more
problems and stress when you do. I join one channel and usually one
channel only. One that _I_ started with another person. There are now
30+ people that are usually on the channel at any given peak during the
day. If I can sit in my channel and live without the pressures of the
others, why can't you?
: why do these people set up their channels so that they are
: always on the top of the /list by putting exclaimaition points
: at the beginning of the name?
Why? Simple. Because they can. Why not? It's their channel. I
suppose you haven't read RFC1459.
: At least be considerate and put
: #ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZiliketofuckchildren so that it is at the
: bottom and i don't have to look at it!!
Filter it.
: I personally think that all of us should message the creators
: of these child porn channels and tell them how they are
: destroying the reputation of the internet. Flood their bots!!!
Get over yourself. Flooding the bots they have will do what? Save
bandwidth? In case that's a mind stumping question, no. You destroy
your reputation, that of your provider, AND you get klined. Hrm.. seems
like you've made yourself and your provider look stupid in one fell
swoop.
: These people are scum. These people need to be in prison not
: on IRC servers. Especially on educational institutions' computer systems.
I won't insert some biblical reference about judging people, but pretend
I did. Start judging others and find yourself a victim of the same
fate.
: Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
: on on their machines! You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
Sysops, as you put it, are not guardians of your children or you in that
sense. You will just have to get over the fact that this isn't AOL and
just move on. You will need to move on if that's what you want. You
can always click on the disconnect button if you find the net a
dangerous and savage place. No one said it was a nice place.
: I'm sorry, but if someone is openly transferring illegal stuff though
: your machine, and you know about it, and ignore it, like these IRC
: administrators do, then you are an accessory to that crime. It is not
: the same as sending a package through the mail as someone previously
: said it was. Especially if it is a public channel,anyone, and especially
: the irc admins: all you have to do is turn your monitor on and watch. It
For the very _last_ time, the servers DON'T handle the transferring of
files. It's the clients themselvest that do that. The clients are in
something called DCC chat. (Direct Client Connect - or some such).
This means that the server has /nothing/ to do with how the files are
transferred or participating in their transfer. Your assumptions have
caused your argument to fade into nothing if that's what you're
assuming.
It's not the job of the IRC Server administrators to monitor 5000+
channels (on the EFNet or anyother net for that matter). It's virtually
impossible. Most people can't handle 10 channels. I wonder how well
someone could fare with 5000+.
Censorship is for AOL. Go there if that's what you want.
: won't take you long to see what they are doing. It AMAZES me how
: shameless and bold these perverts are. And all it takes is a few
Making statements without supporting evidence does nothing except make
your statements appear broad and expansive.
: keystrokes from an IrCop and these people could be gone. So why do they
: ignore it? When it is so easy to cease? It's your machine people!!
There is nothing that the administrators could do really. For the last
time, it's _not_ their job. Go to an IRC network where it is. You seem
to be a bit unhappy where you are now. If your friends share your
attitude, they'll follow you, won't they?
: These people who like to abuse children are regular guest and utilizers
: of your RAM, electricity and all else!!
Get over yourself. You're wasting bandwidth, ram, and server space to
save your post.
: I do not have any icky feelings towards people exchanging love over the
: internet as long as they are both adults, but this child abuse has got to
: stop!
Are you going to go on the warpath? Are you going to be the one to rid
IRC of it? Are you going to single-handedly wipe clean the dirt that
has been plaguing IRC? I rather think not.
: And like someone else said, IRC is free for the end user. To tell you
: the truth, I don't know why anyone would want to put up a public IRC
: server at all. It is a disasterous mess!
You are full of contradictions. First you say that it's bad and people
must be stopped, but then again, you say it's free for the end user. Oh
my, where should I begin so that I may understand such contradictions?
Simply put, it's not illegal for these people to sit in channels like
the ones you describe. There's nothing wrong about talking about 'child
porn' or abuse. Are you going to arrest these people for talking about
it? There goes the Freedom of Speech... When you begin to censor
people by what channels they should/should not go in, you lose sight of
what's going on. You can't start to censor people simply because of
your discomfort. Censorship is a bad idea in any country, in any form -
but that's my opinion. Censoring people has never successfully worked
and probably never will.
Tony Miller
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
<Big Snip!>
>I am discouraged that you only seem willing to discuss tactics and not
>mission. The mission is to be free of these slavers. I am open to any
>tactics that work and refuse to accept appeasement as an option.
I would like to see the world free of these predators. But stepping
on your rights to do it is not something I'm willing to do. Would you
like us to have monitors in our homes watching us 24 hours a day ala
1984?
This is what seems to be being proposed. People are talking about
drafting computer hobbiests to monitor and eliminate actions on a
volunteer supported network.
That would be like going to your town, and forcing you to patrol the
streets of your neighborhood for child molesters against your will.
I have two little girls who are the light of my life. I would kill
anyone who harmed them. But I'm not ready to buckle to a solution
which traples on the rights of the countless innocents to possibly
punish a couple of the guilty.
Terrie
Not that anyone REAllY cares, but,
Here is how I feel about it:
I do not think that the US should try to censor the
internet. The internet does not belong to any country.
That said, also the internet was not originally created as an
entertainment medium, which it has now largely become. Children have a
right to the internet just as much as anyone. The internet was
originally an educational and communication tool. I sadly watch as that
part of it slips away. Not that the entertainment part is bad, chatting
is great! I totally love to connect with people.
But if it was my IRC server, my machine, I would not in any way allow the
formation of public or private channels that were set up to trade kiddie
porn or lure young children. I used to list users in channels like these
and put the users in my ignore file. I am not saying adult channels are
bad, but these ones, we've all seen them, that are set up to entice
children. It is sick. I was a victim of child abuse. And I think the
IRC server owners are slapping me in the face everytime they allow
channels like that. One time I listed the users in one of these channels
and found a 12 year old girl!!! She had a name like jesse12. So I
messaged her and asked her how old she was. She told me she was 12. I
told her that she didnt need to be in that channel. She just told me she
didn't think that the people there could hurt her because it was just the
computer!! Yet she had her real name in her /whois. I didn't call an
IrCop, cause I knew it would be a waste of my time. But I was really
depressed. I just hope it was really a 40 something guy from the fbi and
not really a 12 year old girl! I don't list users anymore in
these channels. It is too depressing for me. And gawd, why oh
why do these people set up their channels so that they are
always on the top of the /list by putting exclaimaition points
at the beginning of the name?
At least be considerate and put
#ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZiliketofuckchildren so that it is at the
bottom and i don't have to look at it!!
I personally think that all of us should message the creators
of these child porn channels and tell them how they are
destroying the reputation of the internet. Flood their bots!!!
These people are scum. These people need to be in prison not
on IRC servers. Especially on educational institutions' computer systems.
Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
on on their machines! You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
I'm sorry, but if someone is openly transferring illegal stuff though
your machine, and you know about it, and ignore it, like these IRC
administrators do, then you are an accessory to that crime. It is not
the same as sending a package through the mail as someone previously
said it was. Especially if it is a public channel,anyone, and especially
the irc admins: all you have to do is turn your monitor on and watch. It
won't take you long to see what they are doing. It AMAZES me how
shameless and bold these perverts are. And all it takes is a few
keystrokes from an IrCop and these people could be gone. So why do they
ignore it? When it is so easy to cease? It's your machine people!!
These people who like to abuse children are regular guest and utilizers
of your RAM, electricity and all else!!
I do not have any icky feelings towards people exchanging love over the
internet as long as they are both adults, but this child abuse has got to
stop!
And like someone else said, IRC is free for the end user. To tell you
the truth, I don't know why anyone would want to put up a public IRC
server at all. It is a disasterous mess!
Please reply via email.
If you read this far, thanks for listening! :)
Salt
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.960820100005.7462K-100000@goodguy>,
ico...@goodnet.com says...
>
>On 20 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
>
>> >Such general and sweeping statements invalidate your argument. When you
>> >fail to take into account that you might be wrong, you fail to convince an
>> >audience.
>
>> 3) I truly have missed your point here. I state this as opinion not fact.
>
>My point is that you made a general (very general at that) statement that
>was wide sweeping and could never be true of everyone in the group you
>created. Einstein said it himself (not a direct quote - I think), "No
>laws are absolute, including this one." By saying, "He/She/It doesn't
>have children, that must be why they have this attitude," is not only
>broad ranging, but inaccurate. What makes you think that? Just because
>you happen to think that way? When will we get past the generalizations?
Children to me one of those facets of life that you can describe all you want
to the childless but it really makes no impact until they are faced,
personaly, with the situation. There is just too much variation in kids and
situations. I believe unless you have kids, it is in essence an academic
exercise to you. At one point my son was in a home day care and when we
picked him up the operator passed on a rumor that there may be a satanic cult
operating in the area looking for young blond (my son is blond) boys. It was
irrelavent wheather (sp?) it was true or not. We slept real well that night.
Unless you have known that fear I doubt your ability to comprehend it.
My having children has colored my thinking. The viewpoint (mine) that you
must have children to understand is not entirely accurate but it ain't too far
off either and as a generalization is accurate as far as it goes. Even in
science much less human society Nothing is true of everone or everything. I
take an engineering approach to generalizations, if it is true 8 out of 10
times the generalization is applicable and I believe it meets this test.
>
>>
>> 4) BOY DID YOU MISS THE BOAT. This not an issue of telling Johnnie not to
>> play on the computer. In my case my child was molested at a certified day
>> care. I know personally of other similar child abuse cases. Child porn is
>> child abuse. This is first person and I hope you are never here. I won't
go
>
>Your problems are indeed real and I will not discount them. However, just
>because of your problems, you don't need to start a witch hunt or
>participate in one. I just keep hearing that quote from Aaron Satee (TNG)
>about the first link forged..
That 'your problems' bit just supports my previous point. Parents usually see
issues involving children as an 'us problem' vs a 'your problem' issue, at
least most of the parents I have talked with. As for the witches question, if
they are harming my children, I don't care what their politics are -- take
them off at the neck.
>
>> to details as to how much damage it has done to my child and my family, or
the
>> cost both financial and emotional. I do not hold the IRC carrier
responsible
>> (only if there is a way for him to be, and I agree it's probably undoable)
but
>> the people that are willing to do this to children MUST be stopped by any
and
>> all means necessary.
>
>Your final statement is what they said about witches before they started
>hunting for them. Many innocent people were killed because of attitudes
>like yours. How many innocent people will fall under your path?
What would suggest we do with murders and rapists? Do we tolerate them and
look the other way. Have no innocent people been tried and convicted in our
courts? Since there have been miscarriages of justice I guess we should
abandon the court system - no courts, no mistakes. That would be a Brave New
World (good luck). If child abuses aren't to be stopped by 'any and all' means
do you have a backup plan?
>
>> The comments on 'hysteria' (elsewhere in the post)-- well I'll return to my
>> previous statement - obviously someone doesn't have children. This in not
>> hysteria, its spirit crushing mind numbing reality, want some? Just walk
away
>> and it too can be yours someday.
>
>The reality of the situation is that this existed before, and it will
>continue to exist. Cochroaches adapt to bug spray, so I'm willing to be
>these perpetrators will find better ways to escape the law. You only
>encourage it by what you do.
This is the first time I heard that fighting an issue is encouraging it. If
we throw out all common and statuatory law will that make this a better
society? Yes, pedophiles will continue to exist as will all other forms of
human savagery but up to now it escaped me that working against it was
encouraging it, boy, talking about teaching my kids the wrong things, I'm sure
glad you straightened me out.
>
>> As for my job as a parent, it is MY job. I don't ask for you to take
>> responsiblity for it but 1) I ask you don't make it more difficult, and 2)
>
>I can neither make it more difficult nor easier. It simply isn't my job.
>
Beg to differ on your first statement and agree (in part) with your second.
Though Bob Dole made political fun of Hilary's 'it takes a village to raise a
child' statement there is more truth than humbug to the statement. Else, why
do people change neighborhoods or churches or social associations.
I know when I'm in the mall and see a small child by his/herself my first
thought is not how did the parent let this child get here without them
(usually the second thought) but maybe I should just loiter awhile till a
parent shows up. It may not be my kid but I will be sick as blazes if I found
out later the child had been harmed due to my lack of attention. It's not my
job, but you still have to live with myself. Everyday examples exist as to
making it harder - what parent has not experienced 'Why can't I,
Julie's/George's/Jorge's parents let them do ....'.
>> that by your action or inaction you don't endanger them. This 'tolerance'
of
>> kidde porn, or it's not my responsiblity, or hey I'm not to blame, doesn't
cut
>
>I'm sorry it's your personal vendetta to rid the world of such evils. PSB
>could use your help.
Personal it is, vendetta -- well. I have not participated in any illegal
activities (except expressing my opinion maybe) that I'm aware of. As for PSB
he is 'doing' something, maybe right, maybe wrong. During the 1850's it was
illegal to help escaping slaves from the South - guess we ought to chalk it up
to people with 'vendettas' against slavery.
IMO there are 2 kinds of fools in the world, those that break all the rules
and those that keep all the rules. PSB is on the right track but should
probably change tactics, he needs support and not opposition, and I think
right now he's getting more of the latter than the former. Right now I cannot
suggest better tactics so I will reserve judgement on his methods and in that
respect I will have to share resposibility with his actions. I would rather
be guilty of favoring action than inaction with regards to this subject.
>
>> any ice with me. Instead of telling me why you can't do anything, why
don't
>> you suggest what you can do to slow or stop this evil. Its very existance
is
>> damaging whether my children ever enter this medium or not.
>
>The existance of fire is not a dangerous thing. Yet, it's how we treat
>fire that defines it's true threat. I simply state that porn's existance
>in any medium is not a dangerous thing. It's how we react to it.
>
We definitely have a breach of understanding here. If this was a consenual act
I would agree with you, but this isn't the case. I contend it's very
existance is damaging. As long as there is a market someone will try to meet
demand.
I view your point as analogus to; I shouldn't have to worry about being hurt
by a pistol since I don't own one and do not permit them in my home.
>> Per my previous post this is not an academic/estoeric argument for me.
Based
>> on your comments it appears to me, this for you is. It must be nice. I
hope
>> it remains so.
>
>Your assessment is incorrect. This is not an academic or esoterical
>argument for me. Please do not make assumptions on my behalf. You'll
>likely find me to be something of a surprise.
And you have made no assumptions concerning myself? I'll put my cards on the
table - if my arguments are weak so be it, it's a risk that a free and open
society allows me to take.
>
>> 5) Good to know you recognize satire when you see it.
>
>Thank you. I realize that wasn't a true compliment, but I take them when
>and where I get them.
>
>> 6) Even the 'Wild West' had sheriffs and marshals and yes I'm very selfish
>> when it comes to my childrens safety. You want to take a mile in my shoes?
>> BTW, to me, people are more important than the Internet.
>
>Then be your own police officer in your _own_ territory. Police what your
>children see. Don't make the rest of the territory abide by your laws
>simply because you wish it. You'll find it much more profitable to be the
>one that shows your children what's good and what's not on the net.
This statement presumes that if I'm not a Netter that anything that takes
place on the Net, commerce, information exchange, social contacts, etc.. have
no effect on me. This is false.
The Net is a medium similar to any other and is subject to abuse as any other.
What the IRC ops can do is probably limited. In my minds eye the hardware
and software to take a 'big brother' role sufficient to attack the prob head
on just isn't there. It's effectivity would be questionable. I don't think
just walking away is the answer though. Kinda like the tobacco companies
saying the cancer is your problem, we just sell the weed. May be legal but I
don't believe its right. The religous part of me believes that this comes in
under the 'love thy neighbor' part of the contract. As a religious person (it
is mute whether I be christian, muslim, jew, etc..) and citizen of this
country I am obligated to fight against the wrongs I see no matter what the
forum (what can I say, I'm a John Wayne fan).
I noticed you did not answer my question. You have only proposed to do
nothing, is there not another alternative? Are the only alternatives PSB's
'scorch & burn' tactics or your 'do nothing' approach?
I am discouraged that you only seem willing to discuss tactics and not
mission. The mission is to be free of these slavers. I am open to any
tactics that work and refuse to accept appeasement as an option.
Salt
Kaehno
On 21 Aug 1996, Therefore wrote:
: 1. *Child* porn (this is not a discussion of porn) is illegal.
I agree with this. I never stated otherwise.
: 2. Irc operators, imo, should not be directly responsible for child
: porn; in general, they should be treated as common carriers.
I'm wishing more people understood that.
: 3. The government should constantly monitor, investigate and arrest
: those, under full due process of the law, those who traffic in
: child porn.
Exactly how would the government monitor that? That would mean that
_everyone_ would have their conversation sifted through. I don't know
about you, but I don't like the idea of someone snooping in my
conversations whether I have done anything wrong or not; it's
irrelevant. I don't argue that those who violate laws should be
prosecuted, but it's very difficult, if not impossible to try the person
in question. IP Spoofers would waylay your attempts to do a /whois as
clever people can fake addresses (I know as someone did this not once,
not twice, but 3 times with me). Not to mention, you can't really
_prove_ that the person behind that account, assuming that you have the
right one, is actually the owner of the account. There are many
unknowns in this case, you couldn't possibly hope to enforce something
like that.
: 4. Irc operators should cooperate when requested.
I agree... assuming that there would be a way to do that.
: Good point. Salt is very involved with this issue; 'all means necessary' does
: have a problematic flavor to it. But I agree that the legal authorities should
: take what actions are within their powers to attack child porn.
Agreed on both points. Unenforceable or unverifiable on IRC though.
: Yes, and by inference, I believe you are saying that, therefore, don't waste
: the time attacking them. Of which, I do not agree. I never understand that
: logic. It is true that if (I don't) put every possible security device on my
: house, there still will be those who can bypass it. But that is not a reason
: to keep my doors locked as that *will* decrease break-ins, not
: eradication. Because the child porn 'bug spray' does not eradicate, does not
: justify not using it.
In this case, the ultimate security device is the power to turn the
computer off. It will protect you far more in this than any other
security measure you can think of.
: > You only encourage it by what you do.
: Hm. Now its *your* turn to explain a generalization. ;)
Simple, by highlighting the action, you encourage others to do it. It's
not so much a public issue until it's brought into the light. When 'the
element' sees that these actions are being scrutinized (ex: Politicians
see it's being made media news about being with hookers. They just find
better ways to be with hookers without being caught), they find other
ways to continue without being caught. Child porn is like alcohol to
those that would collect it, an addiction if you will. (No, I don't
speak from experience, merely observation.) They simply can't have
enough of it. When you try to take it away, they will find better ways
of making sure they get it, even if they have to hide it better.
: No. I think your local district attorney would be your best bet. ;) PSB is
: clearly as sick as any child molester. It isn't a simple dichotomy: You either
: belive in your position or you believe in PSB's.
On PSB: I agree entirely.
On the dichotomy: I don't state that at all, or imply it. Actually,
the poster reminded me of PSB. ;-)
: Oh. *This* is what you are saying. ;) You didn't mean 'fire' as a general
: metaphor (I could give a million examples that make your aphorism fail) but in
: this case you have a problem: We are not talking about 'porn'. It is as if a
Consider that even child porn in itself isn't a dangerous thing. It's
how people 'react' to it that makes it a dangerous thing. It's as
severe or as light as the person viewing it would have it. That's the
thing about we humans. We do have a way of being subjective and often
not very objective.
: obscene porn is (by definition) illegal but, imo, not immoral and is stupid for
: the government to suppress. Child porn is both illegal and immoral and it is
: the government's duty to suppress. I don't want to discuss whether 'child
Whoah. You do realize that when something is surpressed, it has a
wonderful way of blossoming? Surpress it and you will find more
problems with it 'getting out of control' than you would have hoped for.
Perhaps treating the criminals rather than trying to exterminate them or
'surpress' them would be a better solution.
: participation of children who are not free agents. This is the moral
: equivalency of slavery.
So is supression. You can't take away another person's rights for your
own.
: This isn't an issue of what our children see; the internet is not a playground
: for raising children. This is about illegal activities.
Sure it is. Illegal activity or no, it's still up to the parents to show
the children what's good and what's not for him/her. As a previous
poster made clear (he is a teen, btw), when you shield the children from
the evils of the world around them, they will seek out those evils when
the you go away. The greater evil is perhaps covering them up. I'm
sure if children are shown what's bad and told why (not simply that it
exists and to stay away from it), it will help them to make a better
moral center for themselves. Maybe then we could have better upstanding
citizens and wouldn't have as much of a problem with child pornography.
: Again, this is not about what our children see on the net.
Isn't it?
Kaehno
On 21 Aug 1996, Therefore wrote:
: traders of child pornography and bust their asses. Let them monitor the
: irc for that kind of illegal activity. Good. Do you really see a problem with
: this? This does not require any new legislation. If people are DUMB enough to
: do this on the Irc, they deserve to get their asses busted.
No. I will not give up my privacy simply to monitor offenders. If they
begin to monitor (even if it were feasible to monitor terrabytes of
information on several different networks - [which in itself would be an
arduous task]), I would sooner start to encrypt my information. Why?
Think about it, you still need a search warrant to barge into a house of
even suspected criminal activity. You can't monitor people without
sufficient cause. This is no better than autonomy. I'm afraid it just
won't fly on the internet, per se.
: Yes. Power corrupts. Agreed. Hence why we have a constitutional democracy with
: checks and balances. It be cool.
Checks and balances do not include snooping in on people's conversations
simply because of activity that 'others' are engaging in. You go after
the offender, not the innocent. My whole point is that it's impossible
to even accurately determine who's on the otherside of that screen.
Debra L Schwartz
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond, but the orignal poster seemed
so ignorant about how irc works.
Ok, a few facts.
Finding the [fill in whatever your current crusade is here] isn't easy.
Sure you think it is, you do a /list you go to #pornporngetithere or
whatever and you kill people.
The only problem with this is (I'll refer to DALnet where the offering
of porn to minors or the asking for or offering of kiddie porn is
forbidden) people are innocent until proven guilty. You don't just want
to go in and kill a bunch of users. You might get someone going into
that channel to preach the evil of it to them (g). You have to actually
see them ask or offer.
Second problem, there are many channels, lots and lots, and not only is
it impossible to have an IRCop in each, it would be horrible if we did,
and it will not happen.
No irc net wants to become AOL or 1984. There will be no raids of
channels. It is better to let a few people share pictures that they
could get through other mediums anyway (there are a lot of binary groups
in usenet you know) than to destroy what is good about irc.
Speaking about anything is not a crime.
Another problem, no it isn't easy to eliminate them. Let's say all the
people had nicks like kidporn1 kidporn2 etc. so we knew just who they
were. Then we kill them, and they come right back. So let's say we're
setting AKILLS, ok, so we ban their address. Is it stable or variable?
If it is variable how many innocent users may we have to cut off to keep
them offline? It's a lot of work keeping people offline, you know. At
least for a short time there will be innocent users hurt. How would you
like to know that you can't irc cause of someone else's actions?
Now as to why don't people just take down their servers. Are you insane?
That's throwing out the baby with the bath water. IRC is a wonderful
thing. Destroying it won't stop kiddie porn.
And no, the people whose servers they are can't just see the abuses on
their monitors and do something. They have to search for it just like
anyone else. Do you think that every action on irc is monitored? Well,
it isn't.
*sigh*
I hope you might understand at least a little bit why things aren't as
simple as they seem to you.
Disclaimer: I'm typing this when tired. I hope I spoke clearly and accurately.
Rachel
"The higher you soar the smaller you look to those who cannot fly."
Surel or Rachel on DALnet http://www.dal.net/
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3503/
Jeremy Nelson
Terrie <ter...@calvin.spiff.net> wrote:
>Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
>on on their machines! You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
>I'm sorry, but if someone is openly transferring illegal stuff though
>your machine, and you know about it, and ignore it, like these IRC
>administrators do, then you are an accessory to that crime.
Please, join us in the real world:
Describe, in detail, the technical means that can be used by an irc
server operator to prohibit the sending of all child pornography. This
means must be able to 100% accurately be able to detect the legally of any
transmitted file given only by the filename. Samples of the file being
transmitted will not be available for reference. Complete this assignment
before the government "takes over irc"
Put up or shut up. The only material you have to determine the legality
will be a porn number, a machine number, and a filename. Until you tell
us exactly how we're supposed to "get rid of the kiddie porn" from that
information, youll just be dismissed as another idealistic simpleton.
>the same as sending a package through the mail as someone previously
>said it was.
Just because you say it isnt doesnt mean that it isnt. Refute the argument,
dont just dismiss it out of hand.
>Especially if it is a public channel,anyone, and especially
>the irc admins: all you have to do is turn your monitor on and watch.
How many users are there?
How many channels are there?
How many operators are there?
What were _you_ doing in a pervert channel?
>And all it takes is a few
>keystrokes from an IrCop and these people could be gone.
The more you regurgitate abject stupidity such as this, it becomes so
much more the obvious that those we argue with really have no idea what
theyre talking about. This does not cease to amaze me.
Please explicitly state the keystrokes that must be pressed in order
for "all these people to be gone"
Oh. You havent any idea how to really get rid of them? Didnt think so.
Youve just assumed that "they must know how to do it, dont they?"
> And like someone else said, IRC is free for the end user. To tell you
>the truth, I don't know why anyone would want to put up a public IRC
>server at all. It is a disasterous mess!
What happens when all the servers "pull the plug" as you recommended
earlier? Where will you use irc? All the servers have shut down because
"thats da way to get dem durn kiddie molesturs!"
Youre way past hoplessly naiive and incompetent. I at least hold
Tony Miller in the respect that he is technically competent. I cant
say that about you.
Put up or shut up. If kiddie porn is so easy to get rid of, why hasnt
anyone told us how to get rid of it? Where is this "switch" we're supposed
to throw that magically makes all these bad people turn into "glinda,
the good witch of the north" and prace off to disney land to cavort with
mickey mouse and all the other good people of the world?
Of course, reality never really got in the way of your grandiose plans.
-hop
Johnston A
Kaehno (ico...@goodnet.com) wrote:
: > I will not allow a person who is abusing the sensitive issue of child
: > pornography to use it as a cover for his own criminal activity.
: Interesting point... I pray that you're wrong - for his sake.
Actualy Mr PSB has been identified as being the person using the nickname
RevWhite on Undernet and being manager of channel #!!!!!!!!!!!!!KKK
(give or take a !) He was globaly banned from undernet after numerous
abuse and is now trying to get back at Undernet. This is the lowest of the
lowest scum you can possibly find.
: ----
: Lead Technical Support Specialist
: IRC Administrator
: ico...@goodnet.com / irca...@goodnet.com
: ico...@netzone.com
UnderTow
--
Alistair Johnston AI student VU Amsterdam ajo...@cs.vu.nl
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ajohnst/ -----------------------------
UnderTow on UnderNet IRC unde...@undernet.org
member of Undernet's Public Relations committee pr-...@undernet.org
CrackBaby
Terrie <ter...@calvin.spiff.net> wrote:
> Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
> on on their machines!
These IRC server sysops have no control over what is going on on their
machines.
> You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
Yes, you can. Why don't you?
CrackBaby
caro...@uoknor.edu
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
M. D. Yesowitch
> From: Terrie <ter...@calvin.spiff.net>
> Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
> on on their machines! You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
> I'm sorry, but if someone is openly transferring illegal stuff though
> your machine, and you know about it, and ignore it, like these IRC
> administrators do, then you are an accessory to that crime. It is not
DCC is a client to client interaction, not a server to client
interaction or a server to server interaction. The only people who
have any power to do something about it are the system administrators
of the receivers or senders.
> the same as sending a package through the mail as someone previously
> said it was. Especially if it is a public channel,anyone, and especially
> the irc admins: all you have to do is turn your monitor on and watch. It
> won't take you long to see what they are doing. It AMAZES me how
> shameless and bold these perverts are. And all it takes is a few
> keystrokes from an IrCop and these people could be gone. So why do they
> ignore it? When it is so easy to cease? It's your machine people!!
> These people who like to abuse children are regular guest and utilizers
> of your RAM, electricity and all else!!
I "ignore" it because I don't know (without receiving the pictures and
therefore breaking a law myself) what the files are really about and
if the people talking are in fact minors. I know of people who role
play young children when they are, in fact, adults and consenting ones
at that. I'm not a person out to punish children for being young and
maliable and therefore abuseable, but what you call for is not
reasonable control, it's spying, prying and a harsh judgement.
-m
****************************************************************************
M.D. Yesowitch yeso...@rocza.kei.com
All Flames to: women-not-to-...@kei.com
http://www.kei.com/homepages/yesowitc/
Medway Information Systems Department
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.960821080855.4545B-100000@goodguy>, Kaehno
<ico...@goodnet.com> writes
>On 21 Aug 1996, Therefore wrote:
>
>Lead Technical Support Specialist
>IRC Administrator
>ico...@goodnet.com / irca...@goodnet.com
>ico...@netzone.com
>
i have been reading bit's and pieces of this for a while now and i cant
help but think that this to a certin extent is a pointless argument, as
in one corner you have the freedom of speahc people and in the other you
have the anti-child pron people.
I probably differ from most as i am in the uk and it seems most of you
come from the usa, in the uk the police have already made service
providers remove ANY porn from their servers is news gruops and have
said this is only the start. I stand in the middle to a certin extent,
kiddie porn i think is the lowest of the low and efforts should be made
to shield the rest of the normal world from these perverted people how
this would be done i have no idea, then on the freedom iof speach
everyone should be allowed to say what they want when they want, in
other words contradicting myself, i think its which is the stronger
feeling erase kiddie porn or total freedom of speach. For me the kiddie
porn should go but thats only my opion and if it interferes with my
freedom so be it, i would willingly give a bit of personal freedom even
if it only help one child!
On top of it all i think it very narrow minded of people to think that
the internet as a whole is not already being monitored - get real. No
government aloows this much feedom without having a foothold somewhere!
anyway this will now be pulled apart, but as i ssaid this i just my
oppinion if you dont like it...i dont care anyway:)
karl
--
The trouble with the truth is that we dont allways want to hear it!
Shane Wolff
In article <321B21...@calvin.spiff.net> you wrote:
[snip stupid communist bullshit tons of it]
I agree with what you are saying about Molesters etc... But.
If you start to censor #!!!!kiddysexpics know whats next #sexpics
then you know whats next #warez then you know whats next #atheism
then you know whats next no more irc bye bye. This is how it was
done in communist countrys freedom is taken away little by little
without the people knowing it. Those people have a right to wank
off at home talking to a 48 year old FBI Agent. But when IRC servers
and goverment start to keep logs etc.. Its gonna be gone. And then
you can look at our life and blood 1st admendment and wonder. Sure
there are child molesters on the internet, you teach your kids not
to talk to stranger people like you would in real life. I personaly
would rather have them at home getting it with a 98year old pretending
to be 12 then out stealing some kids. ehh..
Just remeber its taken slowly away then its gone ;o)
ps: sorry about the spelling its like 2 o clock ;o)
--
wo...@j51.com
!!!!! DO NOT LET THE GOVERMENT RUN THE INTERNET !!!!!!
Salt
In article <4vfom2$2...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
comput...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>mission. The mission is to be free of these slavers. I am open to any
>>tactics that work and refuse to accept appeasement as an option.
>
>on your rights to do it is not something I'm willing to do. Would you
>like us to have monitors in our homes watching us 24 hours a day ala
>1984?
No. But I find hard to believe that is the 'only' alternative.
>
>This is what seems to be being proposed. People are talking about
>drafting computer hobbiests to monitor and eliminate actions on a
>volunteer supported network.
Unfortunately I don't have a proposal and I am not aware of this being
suggested but it could be a possibility, a Guardian Angels-type approach.
>
>That would be like going to your town, and forcing you to patrol the
>streets of your neighborhood for child molesters against your will.
How could you 'make' anyone in cyberspace perform in this manner? Even if
desirable (which I agree it is not) it wouldn't happen, coersion just won't
work.
>
>I have two little girls who are the light of my life. I would kill
>anyone who harmed them. But I'm not ready to buckle to a solution
>which traples on the rights of the countless innocents to possibly
>punish a couple of the guilty.
What I think I'm looking for is
1) a procedure/methodology be proposed/provided where as people become aware
in cyberspace of this activity (or any illegal activity) they have
channels/contacts thru which IRC ops and law enforcement can be notified and
have confidence that action will be taken. This is not an automated search
but would be initiated due to witnessing suspected illegal activity. If this
process already exists, I am not aware.
2) Any blatant illegal sexual content (not encrypted) could be identified (not
sure this is possible) via automated search of channel titles or conversation
content. I understand that in the Child molester community 'searching for a
new life' is code for 'I'm trolling for a children'. Is this desirable or
doable? I don't know. I am willing to discuss and explore. I believe the
tools to encourage the spread kiddie porn in cyberspace are readily apparent,
it will require effort to find countermeasures. I find offensive and
unAmerican to say simply 'there is nothing that can be done'.
I don't advocate a 'scorched earth' policy on the Internet to address this
problem. I think turning a blind eye to the issue however (which is what I
see proposed) will result in even worse damage.
Salt
Kaehno
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Medway Information Systems Department wrote:
[Quote of the entirety of a previous article snipped]
: i have been reading bit's and pieces of this for a while now and i cant
: help but think that this to a certin extent is a pointless argument, as
: in one corner you have the freedom of speahc people and in the other you
: have the anti-child pron people.
That's what I've been trying to convey as an undercurrent in my
postings. This is an argument where both sides are horribly wrong and
entirely correct. A contradiction maybe? Definitely.
: I probably differ from most as i am in the uk and it seems most of you
: come from the usa, in the uk the police have already made service
: providers remove ANY porn from their servers is news gruops and have
: said this is only the start. I stand in the middle to a certin extent,
The problem is that it's next to impossible to do that to Newsfeeds that
won't censor things like that. Admittedly, there are some providers
with censored newsfeeds. Users just go and access non-censored
newsfeeds.. so what's the point? BUT, think about it, it's next to
impossible to filter through terrabytes of information pouring through
newsgroups and the USENet everyday, let alone IRC.
: kiddie porn i think is the lowest of the low and efforts should be made
: to shield the rest of the normal world from these perverted people how
: this would be done i have no idea, then on the freedom iof speach
: everyone should be allowed to say what they want when they want, in
: other words contradicting myself, i think its which is the stronger
: feeling erase kiddie porn or total freedom of speach. For me the kiddie
: porn should go but thats only my opion and if it interferes with my
: freedom so be it, i would willingly give a bit of personal freedom even
: if it only help one child!
I will not give up my rights nor the rights of millions of other people
simply to stop a minor portion of them. "The needs of the many outweigh
the needs of the few (or the one)." - Spock (Btw, for you
pseudo-Christians whom would flame such a reference, get over it.) I
will not begin to sacrifice a freedom that was guaranteed me over 200
years ago. Not today, not tomorrow, never.
: On top of it all i think it very narrow minded of people to think that
: the internet as a whole is not already being monitored - get real. No
: government aloows this much feedom without having a foothold somewhere!
Good luck on them filtering the terrabytes soon to be the hundreds if
not thousands of terrabytes a day.. :)
Salt
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.960821080855.4545B-100000@goodguy>,
ico...@goodnet.com says...
>----
>Lead Technical Support Specialist
>IRC Administrator
>ico...@goodnet.com / irca...@goodnet.com
>ico...@netzone.com
>
Interesting observation - Have been looking at other posts in the newsgroup
specifically the 'gamma net/brats' thread. I see Kadhno doing everything he
can within the system to have people disconnected/removed from parts (or all)
of cyberspace. For what? Wasting bandwith, breaking the 'rules' for false
ID's, being less than a polite person. The approach and responses to me
appear appropriate for the offenses identified.
Yet -- on the kiddie porn thread I do not see suggestions of some related
activity as a response. I know I'm ignorant and I hope someone will inform me
that there is some process out there for attacking illegal activities such as
these are also available. However, what has been posted so far has only
stated that (similar to the above) 'there is nothing that can be done'. I am
mystified that such effort and bandwith would be invested (and not just by
Kaehno) into such an argument (the gamma thread) for something that:
1) you can simply turn off
2) ignore (do these first 2 items look familiar?)
3) is not against the law (just the 'rules')
4) that even if it persists hurts no one (no one goes to therapy, goes to
court, no one loses a job or money, or would result in a criminal record).
Gotta admit that what I've seen so far makes no sense to me. To me the
activities of the offender(s) in the gamma thread is an example of the
exercise of their 'free speach' rights which results in a concerted effort to
have them removed from cyberspace while the existance of illegal activities is
to be ignored. This seems to me a 'get the anal retentive out whilst we leave
the criminals alone' approach.
I think this part of cyberspace is rooted in the Twilight Zone.
Salt
Medway Information Systems Department
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.960822091620.10428B-100000@goodguy>, Kaehno
<ico...@goodnet.com> writes
>Lead Technical Support Specialist
>IRC Administrator
>ico...@goodnet.com / irca...@goodnet.com
>ico...@netzone.com
>
Sorry bout not snipping but i didnt have the time to make things look
neat! I can fully understand your feelings on not giving up your rights
i would'nt expect you to. As i said in my posting its just my opion and
on top of it all i dont think banning pedophiles for the internet would
make it any less likely to happen, the internet is just the lastest
point were kiddie porn has come to the serface, it would however make a
vast group of people feel like they have contributed to make the
internet a safer place, is this right or wrong, well i dont know.
I do know that being a peadophile is a sexual preference and to that end
once a peadophile always a peadophile its just like being hetrosexual,
stopping them trading in public on the internet will just drive them
underground. although the less palce's they have to go the less likey
they r you recrute more childered. This is just not a simple argument
which can be sorted out with a couple of postings to a news group. The
issue is much wider. Although asking them to set key's to channels may
be an idea. I think we r going to have to, wether we like it or not get
used to, peadophile on the net along with racists, perverts and other
undesirable groups of people(i'm now sure wether religious groups fall
into this ), unfortunatly its a fact of life.
As for the police in the UK, your right thats an awful amount of data to
sift, but they only have to find one pcture on a server and it gets
closed and the owners taken to court. Again is this true feedom to dso
exactly what you want???
I still do believe that you only have the freedom which is granted to
you, its not a authority free world, as much as we'd like it to be:))
karl
--
Medway Information Systems Department
jo...@mindspring.com
Isn't this the Dalnet newgroup and not the Undernet newsgroup?
Tony Miller
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
>>I would like to see the world free of these predators. But stepping
>>on your rights to do it is not something I'm willing to do. Would you
>>like us to have monitors in our homes watching us 24 hours a day ala
>>1984?
>No. But I find hard to believe that is the 'only' alternative.
But monitoring seems to be what you are actively proposing.
Monitoring of conversation either by "official" entities, or "citizen
vigilantes".
>>This is what seems to be being proposed. People are talking about
>>drafting computer hobbiests to monitor and eliminate actions on a
>>volunteer supported network.
>Unfortunately I don't have a proposal and I am not aware of this being
>suggested but it could be a possibility, a Guardian Angels-type approach.
Right. Vigilantes like PSB patrolling the channels. Just what I'd
like to see. Chatting with people wondering if every word I say were
being monitored. Doesn't sound like much fun to me. Does it sound
like fun to you?
And how about the user with a grudge? I don't like you, so I turn you
in to the witch hunters. You'd be forced to prove your innocence
while they were pounding in the stake and piling up the wood.
Now your reputation is sullied. do you think you'll ever get it back?
Or are you of the opinion that you have to break a few eggs to make an
omelette? :-(
>>That would be like going to your town, and forcing you to patrol the
>>streets of your neighborhood for child molesters against your will.
>How could you 'make' anyone in cyberspace perform in this manner? Even if
>desirable (which I agree it is not) it wouldn't happen, coersion just won't
>work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you who was proposing that the
admins and IRCops put a stop to this? They are private citizens like
we are, and that idea drafts them into a law enforcement role that
they didn't agree to when they volunteered for this job.
>>I have two little girls who are the light of my life. I would kill
>>anyone who harmed them. But I'm not ready to buckle to a solution
>>which traples on the rights of the countless innocents to possibly
>>punish a couple of the guilty.
>What I think I'm looking for is
>1) a procedure/methodology be proposed/provided where as people become aware
>in cyberspace of this activity (or any illegal activity) they have
>channels/contacts thru which IRC ops and law enforcement can be notified and
>have confidence that action will be taken. This is not an automated search
>but would be initiated due to witnessing suspected illegal activity. If this
>process already exists, I am not aware.
"Suspected illegal activity". Hmmm... Have you registered all your
shareware, Salt? Got any "warez"? How do you keep my rights
(including the right to privacy) intact while you are hunting these
molesters down?
>2) Any blatant illegal sexual content (not encrypted) could be identified (not
>sure this is possible) via automated search of channel titles or conversation
>content. I understand that in the Child molester community 'searching for a
>new life' is code for 'I'm trolling for a children'. Is this desirable or
>doable? I don't know. I am willing to discuss and explore. I believe the
>tools to encourage the spread kiddie porn in cyberspace are readily apparent,
>it will require effort to find countermeasures. I find offensive and
>unAmerican to say simply 'there is nothing that can be done'.
I didn't know about that "molester phrase". Thank you for
enlightening me. So I start a channel called "#ChildMolesters" where
we all get together and discuss how to stop molestation, and some
automated gizmo picks us up and turns us in to the FBI.
Our illustrious officers armed with search warrants bust down your
door and confiscate your computer equipment. You try to explain to
them that you're one of the good guys, and they ask: "What were you
doing in the channel called "#ChildMolesters". Go directly to jail.
Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
>I don't advocate a 'scorched earth' policy on the Internet to address this
>problem. I think turning a blind eye to the issue however (which is what I
>see proposed) will result in even worse damage.
Not a blind eye. But I remember a prayer that is apt in this case.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
The strength to change the things I can
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Peace to you salt,
--Tony
--
DALnet, the BEST IRC network on the face of the planet
Salt
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.960823084803.6826B-100000@goodguy>,
ico...@goodnet.com says...
>
>On 23 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
>
>[Quoting of yet another entire post deleted]
>
>: Interesting observation - Have been looking at other posts in the newsgroup
he
>: can within the system to have people disconnected/removed from parts (or
all)
>: of cyberspace. For what? Wasting bandwith, breaking the 'rules' for false
>: ID's, being less than a polite person. The approach and responses to me
>: appear appropriate for the offenses identified.
>
>email address in order to pathetically create support for him/herself.
>B.) Flood another's email box. C.) Make unfounded accusations. D.)
>Continue prattling on about something that is moot. E.) Post and post
>just to fill up news servers with articles that contain little fact and
>mean less. F.) All of the above. or G.) None of the above.
>
>Actually, dumbell did A, B, C, D, AND E. That's a no no.
>Incidentally, he didn't just target me, but I do know that he did
>flood at least one other person that posts here regulary's mail box.
>(Grammar not withstanding). PSB on the otherhand, did C, D, and E. He
>was asked to just drop the thread. However, oridinarily, I don't resort
>to that and just chalk it up to the filter file. These two people just
>continued general annoyance and trolling. Gee, I'm supposed to just
>continue to waste space adding kills to my file, rather than informing
>their ISP that their conduct is inappropriate? Hrm... This is the point
>you're missing about the IRC issue entirely. You don't bugger the
>IRCOps about someone's behavior, you take it to their ISP.
I thought I was agreeing with your actions based on the offenses identified.
|-(.
>
>: Yet -- on the kiddie porn thread I do not see suggestions of some related
>: activity as a response. I know I'm ignorant and I hope someone will inform
me
>
>In that case, the 'criminals' per se, are not as readily available.
I am assuming (that 'assume' word again) that PSB was addressing his ilk to
specific individuals. I also presumed that they somehow made themselves
'available'. I don't think he engaged in mind reading or the lottery to
select his victims.
By the way how do you define 'criminals'. I always thought of those people
that could be hauled into a court of law (not public opinion) and be subject
to fines or imprisonment. You appear to make no distinction between Child
pornagraphers and Net abusers.
>IE:
>They don't make themselves a target. It's easier to cast blame on a
>group of individuals isn't it? Here, there was a clearly defined 'perp'
>and I didn't make generalizations about his actions and classify him as
>a group of people and damn them to hell.
Some generalization's you have made:
>'the ultimate security device is the power to turn the computer off.' -
This would appear to contradict my limited understanding of your comment on 2)
below
>'by highlighting the action, you encourage others to do it.' followed by
>'You do realize that when something is surpressed, it has a
>wonderful way of blossoming? Surpress it and you will find more
>problems with it 'getting out of control' than you would have hoped for.'-
Then by your own words you are making the absolute worse response to this
activity , and it ain't even illegal just not 'Nettiquette'.
>'Consider that even child porn in itself isn't a dangerous thing.'
Has nothing to do with this specific post but one hellu'va generalization.
>I simply took his actions and
>dealt with him specifically. I suppose you think I'm on a campaign or
>something. That is an incorrect assessment. I simply read news from
>day to day. In order to prevent an epidemic, you must work on the
>cause.
I agree and I say the child porn issue deserves at least the same diligence
and attention.
>That I did. What's your problem with it?
None.
>
>: 1) you can simply turn off
>
>I suppose you have a point. Again, both sides are valid arguments, but
>how do you determine who is right? You don't.
>
>: 2) ignore (do these first 2 items look familiar?)
>
>No, ignoring and turning the computer off are two different things.
Lost me.
>
>: 3) is not against the law (just the 'rules')
>
>It's against 'Nettiquette'. Nettiquette can be defined as the 'law'
>per se. In fact, nettiquette is common sense.
Beg to differ if it is not against the criminal code it is 'opinion'. I'm
pretty sure on that (at least I've never seen/heard anyone in jail because of)
but maybe you should ask a lawyer/judge, would hate to see someone go to jail
'cause they twern't nice on duh net'.
>
>: 4) that even if it persists hurts no one (no one goes to therapy, goes to
>: court, no one loses a job or money, or would result in a criminal record).
>
>Hrm... sound familiar with your issue at all?
Lost me again. Again your comment appears to equate bad manners with
felonious activity.
>
>: Gotta admit that what I've seen so far makes no sense to me. To me the
>: activities of the offender(s) in the gamma thread is an example of the
>: exercise of their 'free speach' rights which results in a concerted effort
to
>: have them removed from cyberspace while the existance of illegal activities
is
>: to be ignored. This seems to me a 'get the anal retentive out whilst we
leave
>: the criminals alone' approach.
>
>Free speech includes { Flooding email boxes, Making unfounded
>accusations (which could be determined as libel), faking email addresses
>to create fictious support for an empty cause, blathering on about
>something that is moot anyway, and general waste of bandwidth replying
>to above said just to post. } ?
Offensive as it is, yes. Did you think it only applied to politics, race or
sex?
>
>Activities (Here in the US) can only go so far, even with the Freedom of
>Speech.
Wait a minute, per your previous arguments how can you suggest Free Speech
'can only go so far' (agree, I'm reversing the words but I submit the
implication exists) - I thought that was my line? 8-) Are you a Clinton
speach writer? You said you might suprise me. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
> When it becomes harassing and the user has been asked to stop
>multiple times and continues, it becomes a matter of taking it up with a
>higher authority. In this case, the higher authority is his ISP.
>
>Lesson for the future, if you have information about a person is
>engaging in illegal activities, document it. Send that information to
>the person's ISP. Let the ISP deal with it. I was not acting out of
>malice or ill-intention. I simply put a stop to his abhorant violations
>of Nettiquette (which I did not write).
FINALLY an answer/response to my question. One small prob:
1) In this case 'documenting it' can make me as guilty as the perp. That is
not the type of result I'm looking for.
2) Is the ISP obligated (legally not Nettalogically) to do something about it?
Why risk if there is no reward? Simply shutting down the offender in this
case is not an appropriate response.
I realize that I missed the very beginning of the thread with PSB, I have a
tendency to miss conversation beginnings. But I never saw the above
recommendation anywhere in the thread. That to me is the appropriate response
to PSB not the 'shame, shame, shame' that I did see.
>
>: I think this part of cyberspace is rooted in the Twilight Zone.
>
>#Twilight_Zone? ;-)
>----
>Lead Technical Support Specialist
>IRC Administrator
>ico...@goodnet.com / irca...@goodnet.com
>ico...@netzone.com
>
Forgive me, Mr. (again I'm assuming) Kaehno, I don't mean to pick on you
personally, and I hope these continuing posts are not perceived by you or the
other readers as such. You do serve as a convenient focus for this argument
and I feel you have tried to keep this civilized and, with the other
attitudes on the net, I wish to say, thank you.
Responsibilities first, rights second, not the other way round.
Salt
Salt
In article <4vl00r$j...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
comput...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
>
>
>>>I would like to see the world free of these predators. But stepping
>>>on your rights to do it is not something I'm willing to do. Would you
>>>like us to have monitors in our homes watching us 24 hours a day ala
>>>1984?
>
>>No. But I find hard to believe that is the 'only' alternative.
>
>But monitoring seems to be what you are actively proposing.
>Monitoring of conversation either by "official" entities, or "citizen
>vigilantes".
Isn't this taking place already? Do you not monitor a channel before you
participate? Why else do people collect or skip various channels. I'm
suggesting that procedure be established to do so for a purpose.
>
>>>This is what seems to be being proposed. People are talking about
>>>drafting computer hobbiests to monitor and eliminate actions on a
>>>volunteer supported network.
>
>>Unfortunately I don't have a proposal and I am not aware of this being
>>suggested but it could be a possibility, a Guardian Angels-type approach.
>
>Right. Vigilantes like PSB patrolling the channels. Just what I'd
>like to see. Chatting with people wondering if every word I say were
>being monitored. Doesn't sound like much fun to me. Does it sound
>like fun to you?
Your words are already recorded, how else this conversation? It doesn't take
much wandering over this newsgroup to see people taking action against
real/perceived wrongs. This appears to me to ignore the current 'reality' -
it already happens. I don't see how taking action against the predators
changes the current cyberspace environment. This to me is a 'hysterical and
paranoid' response to the issue.
>
>And how about the user with a grudge? I don't like you, so I turn you
>in to the witch hunters. You'd be forced to prove your innocence
>while they were pounding in the stake and piling up the wood.
>
>Now your reputation is sullied. do you think you'll ever get it back?
>Or are you of the opinion that you have to break a few eggs to make an
>omelette? :-(
You imply this does not currently happen but could take place in the name of
kiddie porn. I think the potential abuse already takes place - for other
reasons. Implying taking up the kiddie porn issue would add to that burden
leads me to think this is a BIG problem (kiddie porn) if it can have that
effect. Else how does this change the current environment. I used to work
Software Quality for the Army. Found out one thing real fast, I could only
catch those failures that were unintentional. I could not find failures if
the contractor was fraudulent. Any procedure proposed/provided will probably
be abused. That hasn't stopped anyone from trying to come up with something
for other perceived threats, why is this particular one so impossible'?????
>
>>>That would be like going to your town, and forcing you to patrol the
>>>streets of your neighborhood for child molesters against your will.
>
>>How could you 'make' anyone in cyberspace perform in this manner? Even if
>>desirable (which I agree it is not) it wouldn't happen, coersion just won't
>>work.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you who was proposing that the
>admins and IRCops put a stop to this?
I've asked that they participate to find a solution, if not a whole solution
at least a way to attack the problem. Don't keep telling me 'there's nothing
I can do', I get that from my kids and I don't accept it from them either.
>They are private citizens like
>we are, and that idea drafts them into a law enforcement role that
>they didn't agree to when they volunteered for this job.
>
>>>I have two little girls who are the light of my life. I would kill
>>>anyone who harmed them. But I'm not ready to buckle to a solution
>>>which traples on the rights of the countless innocents to possibly
>>>punish a couple of the guilty.
>
>>What I think I'm looking for is
>
>>1) a procedure/methodology be proposed/provided where as people become aware
>>in cyberspace of this activity (or any illegal activity) they have
>>channels/contacts thru which IRC ops and law enforcement can be notified and
>>have confidence that action will be taken. This is not an automated search
>>but would be initiated due to witnessing suspected illegal activity. If this
>>process already exists, I am not aware.
>
>"Suspected illegal activity". Hmmm... Have you registered all your
>shareware, Salt? Got any "warez"? How do you keep my rights
>(including the right to privacy) intact while you are hunting these
>molesters down?
1) How do cops investigate people for criminal activity except based on
'probable cause'?
2) Excuse me but who said this is a 'private' conversation? The Internet is a
broadcast network. It is possible you can make a case for e-mail (that is
still under question, just ask Ollie North) but I think making it for the
IRC/Newsgroups/etc... is about as private as shouting over your neighbors
fence. In my opinion it will have no protection under the law - it fails the
'reasonable' expectance of privacy test. You may not like it but I believe
that is the way it is. If you don't like it talk to your lawyer/Congressman.
>
>>2) Any blatant illegal sexual content (not encrypted) could be identified
(not
>>sure this is possible) via automated search of channel titles or
conversation
>>content. I understand that in the Child molester community 'searching for a
>>new life' is code for 'I'm trolling for a children'. Is this desirable or
>>doable? I don't know. I am willing to discuss and explore. I believe the
>>tools to encourage the spread kiddie porn in cyberspace are readily
apparent,
>>it will require effort to find countermeasures. I find offensive and
>>unAmerican to say simply 'there is nothing that can be done'.
>
>I didn't know about that "molester phrase". Thank you for
>enlightening me. So I start a channel called "#ChildMolesters" where
>we all get together and discuss how to stop molestation, and some
>automated gizmo picks us up and turns us in to the FBI.
>
>Our illustrious officers armed with search warrants bust down your
>door and confiscate your computer equipment. You try to explain to
>them that you're one of the good guys, and they ask: "What were you
>doing in the channel called "#ChildMolesters". Go directly to jail.
>Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Your key there is 'search warrants'. They have to show probable cause before
they can obtain the warrants. As intelligent as our gov't is I do believe
they would have to show something more than someone whispered the words 'child
molestation' to take the action you suggest.
As for the destruction of reputations it already happens everyday. I don't
believe that by ignoring the child porn issue these activities will cease or
even significantly decrease. There are bad people in 'every' aspect of life:
lawyers, judges, clergy, CEO's, politicians. whatever. To not go after this
predators is to permit them to live among us, and that is even a higher price
than the one you name. They are not benign, they don't just harm themselves,
they are a cancer that can kill the body if not treated.
>
>>I don't advocate a 'scorched earth' policy on the Internet to address this
>>problem. I think turning a blind eye to the issue however (which is what I
>>see proposed) will result in even worse damage.
>
>Not a blind eye. But I remember a prayer that is apt in this case.
>
>God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
>The strength to change the things I can
>and the wisdom to know the difference.
>
>Peace to you salt,
I believe my post is under the heading of the 2nd line to that prayer.
There may be no answer but, I have yet to see the discussion to validate it,
I've just seen many doubting Thomase's concluding 'it can't be' just because
they haven't tried thinking another way. If that ain't a 'blind eye' then the
meaning of the expression escapes me.
>--Tony
>
>--
>DALnet, the BEST IRC network on the face of the planet
>
Salt
The three rules of Aaron House:
Deny,
Deny,
Deny.
Kaehno
On 23 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
[Quoting of yet another entire post deleted]
: Interesting observation - Have been looking at other posts in the newsgroup
: specifically the 'gamma net/brats' thread. I see Kadhno doing everything he
: can within the system to have people disconnected/removed from parts (or all)
: of cyberspace. For what? Wasting bandwith, breaking the 'rules' for false
: ID's, being less than a polite person. The approach and responses to me
: appear appropriate for the offenses identified.
Let's see... In order to make an argument, one must: A.) Forge his/her
email address in order to pathetically create support for him/herself.
B.) Flood another's email box. C.) Make unfounded accusations. D.)
Continue prattling on about something that is moot. E.) Post and post
just to fill up news servers with articles that contain little fact and
mean less. F.) All of the above. or G.) None of the above.
Actually, dumbell did A, B, C, D, AND E. That's a no no.
Incidentally, he didn't just target me, but I do know that he did
flood at least one other person that posts here regulary's mail box.
(Grammar not withstanding). PSB on the otherhand, did C, D, and E. He
was asked to just drop the thread. However, oridinarily, I don't resort
to that and just chalk it up to the filter file. These two people just
continued general annoyance and trolling. Gee, I'm supposed to just
continue to waste space adding kills to my file, rather than informing
their ISP that their conduct is inappropriate? Hrm... This is the point
you're missing about the IRC issue entirely. You don't bugger the
IRCOps about someone's behavior, you take it to their ISP.
: Yet -- on the kiddie porn thread I do not see suggestions of some related
: activity as a response. I know I'm ignorant and I hope someone will inform me
In that case, the 'criminals' per se, are not as readily available. IE:
They don't make themselves a target. It's easier to cast blame on a
group of individuals isn't it? Here, there was a clearly defined 'perp'
and I didn't make generalizations about his actions and classify him as
a group of people and damn them to hell. I simply took his actions and
dealt with him specifically. I suppose you think I'm on a campaign or
something. That is an incorrect assessment. I simply read news from
day to day. In order to prevent an epidemic, you must work on the
cause. That I did. What's your problem with it?
: 1) you can simply turn off
I suppose you have a point. Again, both sides are valid arguments, but
how do you determine who is right? You don't.
: 2) ignore (do these first 2 items look familiar?)
No, ignoring and turning the computer off are two different things.
: 3) is not against the law (just the 'rules')
It's against 'Nettiquette'. Nettiquette can be defined as the 'law'
per se. In fact, nettiquette is common sense.
: 4) that even if it persists hurts no one (no one goes to therapy, goes to
: court, no one loses a job or money, or would result in a criminal record).
Hrm... sound familiar with your issue at all?
: Gotta admit that what I've seen so far makes no sense to me. To me the
: activities of the offender(s) in the gamma thread is an example of the
: exercise of their 'free speach' rights which results in a concerted effort to
: have them removed from cyberspace while the existance of illegal activities is
: to be ignored. This seems to me a 'get the anal retentive out whilst we leave
: the criminals alone' approach.
Free speech includes { Flooding email boxes, Making unfounded
accusations (which could be determined as libel), faking email addresses
to create fictious support for an empty cause, blathering on about
something that is moot anyway, and general waste of bandwidth replying
to above said just to post. } ?
Activities (Here in the US) can only go so far, even with the Freedom of
Speech. When it becomes harassing and the user has been asked to stop
multiple times and continues, it becomes a matter of taking it up with a
higher authority. In this case, the higher authority is his ISP.
Lesson for the future, if you have information about a person is
engaging in illegal activities, document it. Send that information to
the person's ISP. Let the ISP deal with it. I was not acting out of
malice or ill-intention. I simply put a stop to his abhorant violations
of Nettiquette (which I did not write).
: I think this part of cyberspace is rooted in the Twilight Zone.
#Twilight_Zone? ;-)
Kaehno
On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Medway Information Systems Department wrote:
[Quoting of yet another entire post snipped]
: Sorry bout not snipping but i didnt have the time to make things look
: neat! I can fully understand your feelings on not giving up your rights
: i would'nt expect you to. As i said in my posting its just my opion and
: on top of it all i dont think banning pedophiles for the internet would
: make it any less likely to happen, the internet is just the lastest
: point were kiddie porn has come to the serface, it would however make a
: vast group of people feel like they have contributed to make the
: internet a safer place, is this right or wrong, well i dont know.
1.) Kiddie porn has not just come to the surface. That I can guarantee
you. It just made for a perfect scapegoat.
2.) You can not tame that which would not be tamed. The Internet
doesn't fall under laws as such. The only police we have are
the ISP's that everyone comes from. We report to the police a
crime (a series of abhorant violations of Netiquette [sp]) and
it's up to them to do the detective work, judging, being the
jury, and the execution.
3.) The Internet is only as safe or as dangerous as you perceive it to
be. It can be a warzone or just a beautiful suburban
neighborhood depending on your perspective.
: I do know that being a peadophile is a sexual preference and to that end
: once a peadophile always a peadophile its just like being hetrosexual,
4.) Er wait. You're saying that it's a preference to be heterosexual?
(I know this will open up another can of worms.) I don't
warrant that most people _decide_ whether they want to be
hetero, homo, bi, or anti-sexual. As for being a pedophile, I
don't know enough about them to make an objective decision as to
whether it's a choice or not. Therefore, I won't jump to
conclusions based on speculation and supposition.
: stopping them trading in public on the internet will just drive them
: underground. although the less palce's they have to go the less likey
: they r you recrute more childered. This is just not a simple argument
: which can be sorted out with a couple of postings to a news group. The
5.) There is no 'underground' on the Internet. You simply find other
avenues to explore. I rather doubt that this kind of activity
can be destroyed, halted, or even curbed. How can you do this?
Pray tell me, how do _you_ know when you're talking to a
pedophile or not? For that matter, how do you know that you're
not talking to a male that claims to be female (or vice versa)?
Answer is, "You don't." There's no way to verify someone on IRC
as being who he/she claims to be. With USENet, admittedly, it's
a different story entirely. We have the headers and the news
paths so that we can send it back to the ISP stating that John
Doe is abusing USENet or whatever. On IRC, it's not so easy..
: issue is much wider. Although asking them to set key's to channels may
: be an idea. I think we r going to have to, wether we like it or not get
: used to, peadophile on the net along with racists, perverts and other
: undesirable groups of people(i'm now sure wether religious groups fall
: into this ), unfortunatly its a fact of life.
6.) We have to get used to them in real-life, why not get used to them
here?
: As for the police in the UK, your right thats an awful amount of data to
: sift, but they only have to find one pcture on a server and it gets
: closed and the owners taken to court. Again is this true feedom to dso
: exactly what you want???
7.) IMHO, arresting the owners of a server for having pictures like
that and it's not necessarily their fault if they have
customers who deposit those files on the server, is entirely
stupid. That's as stupid as charging the IRC Admins/Opers for
failing to stop #!!!!!!!!! channels or whatever. It's
absolutely ludicrous to be put in court over something you have
no control of. But hey, that's MY opinion.
: I still do believe that you only have the freedom which is granted to
: you, its not a authority free world, as much as we'd like it to be:))
8.) I never said that it was an authority free world. On the Internet,
however, there is no 'authority'. There can't be. It's a
community of people and we all have to work together, not start
determining who is going to take charge. In this type of
symbiotic community, there can be no 'head' or authority.
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577
[set BIG_BROTHER_MODE on]
In article <4vfdlo$9...@news.inc.net>, nel...@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson) writes:
> Terrie <ter...@calvin.spiff.net> wrote:
> >Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
> >on on their machines! You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
> >I'm sorry, but if someone is openly transferring illegal stuff though
> >your machine, and you know about it, and ignore it, like these IRC
> >administrators do, then you are an accessory to that crime.
>
> Please, join us in the real world:
>
> Describe, in detail, the technical means that can be used by an irc
> server operator to prohibit the sending of all child pornography. This
> means must be able to 100% accurately be able to detect the legally of any
> transmitted file given only by the filename. Samples of the file being
> transmitted will not be available for reference. Complete this assignment
> before the government "takes over irc"
1: Research into artificial intelligence is indicated, hereinafter called Agents;
said research would include, but not be limited to, the following:
[A] The ability of Agents to recognize the more common forms of
encryption and report them as "suspicious",
[B] The ability of Agents to recognize movies, still pictures, and
audio sounds,
[C] The ability of Agents to recognize the human frame, and to determine,
within a certain accuracy, whether said frame belongs to either a
prepubescent or a pubescent before majority age, depending on
certain parameters to be determined by section (2),
[D] The ability of Agents to recognize certain specific acts, such as
sodomy,
[E] The ability of Agents to trace a communications path, and to determine,
in conjunction with (1.D), whether said acts are illegal in the
location of the donor, the recipient, or any transfer points along
the way, should any such transfer points be relevant to the
routing path,
[F] The ability of Agents to intercept communications between two clients.
It is expected that this research would have beneficial effects for such
things as channel takeovers, lamer detection and expulsion, and
misuse of channel ops.
Note that encryption is *already* considered dangerous, to the point where
software cannot be exported outside of the United States if it passes a
certain "strength" of encryption.
2: Research into the human frame so as to determine whether a given individual,
when naked, would be considered prepubescent, below majority age, or
at majority age, when viewed by the majority of individuals. Such research
may also be relevant to other activites, e.g. drug agents.
Note that race may be a factor here, as orientals, for example, develop at
a slower rate by and large than whites, blacks, or other races. Agents
would have to take this into account.
3: Protocol changes to RFC1459 (which defines IRC) to implement (1.E).
4: Protocol changes to TCP/IP and other relevant documents to implement (1.E).
and (1.F). These may include, but are not limited to, changes to RFC1459.
It is possible that TCP/IP could be traced as is (by putting monitoring
points at every major router), but it would be simpler to change TCP/IP
to allow a federal "rider" to tag along when required.
5: Federal legislation enabling the legality of (1.E) and the recognition that
communities may have differing "standards of obscenity" so that a Federal
court would immediately throw out any appeal that would attempt to
show that the Internet has no "standard of obscenity" (because of its
world-wide audience).
In other words, if you're from Tennessee, you are expected to behave using
Tennessee laws! If you are conversing with someone from Tennessee, you
are expected to behave using Tennessee laws (and of course the laws that
apply to your own locale).
Note that telnetting to an intermediate locale invokes that locale's
laws as well: if one is in Tennessee, telnets to California, and converses
with a New Yorker, *all three* law sets apply.
There are of course difficulties when going outside the United States, but
it is possible a UN commission could study the problem and ultimately a
number of treaties could be signed recognizing each individual nation's
sovereignity over its own physical territory.
6: Funding and eventual registration of each and every computer unit. Hint:
ethernet boards are *already* uniquely identified) so that the owner can
be traced when necessary, in accordance with (1.E).
Welcome to Alpha Complex, citizen. The computer is your friend.
What is your security clearance? What is *my* security clearance?
Hey wait a minute....I'm not finished! *struggle* I want to tell them
about the dangerous *erf* *clunk!!* *clank* *vroom...*
>
> Put up or shut up. The only material you have to determine the legality
> will be a porn number, a machine number, and a filename. Until you tell
> us exactly how we're supposed to "get rid of the kiddie porn" from that
> information, youll just be dismissed as another idealistic simpleton.
>
>
> >the same as sending a package through the mail as someone previously
> >said it was.
>
> Just because you say it isnt doesnt mean that it isnt. Refute the argument,
> dont just dismiss it out of hand.
>
>
> >Especially if it is a public channel,anyone, and especially
> >the irc admins: all you have to do is turn your monitor on and watch.
>
> How many users are there?
> How many channels are there?
> How many operators are there?
> What were _you_ doing in a pervert channel?
Obviously, monitoring it, in accordance with (1). Duh.
I mean, it's possible that the person was actually in #little-girl-lollipop-sex
(say) in order to have sex with the little girl's lollipop, but more than likely
he was just acting on behalf of Federal agents in order to ensure that nothing
illegal was taking place.
I mean, really. Isn't it a citizen's responsibility to kowtow, erm, I
mean, report to the Federal authorities whenever he or she sees something
that is illegal?
>
>
>
> >And all it takes is a few
> >keystrokes from an IrCop and these people could be gone.
>
> The more you regurgitate abject stupidity such as this, it becomes so
> much more the obvious that those we argue with really have no idea what
> theyre talking about. This does not cease to amaze me.
>
> Please explicitly state the keystrokes that must be pressed in order
> for "all these people to be gone"
/KILL nickname
would work, if one is an IRCop. (I think that's the command).
Of course, without an Agent, it would be difficult to determine the set
of nicknames.
And then there are the nickflooder bots. Oops.
>
> Oh. You havent any idea how to really get rid of them? Didnt think so.
> Youve just assumed that "they must know how to do it, dont they?"
>
>
> > And like someone else said, IRC is free for the end user. To tell you
> >the truth, I don't know why anyone would want to put up a public IRC
> >server at all. It is a disasterous mess!
>
> What happens when all the servers "pull the plug" as you recommended
> earlier? Where will you use irc? All the servers have shut down because
> "thats da way to get dem durn kiddie molesturs!"
>
> Youre way past hoplessly naiive and incompetent. I at least hold
> Tony Miller in the respect that he is technically competent. I cant
> say that about you.
>
>
> Put up or shut up. If kiddie porn is so easy to get rid of, why hasnt
> anyone told us how to get rid of it? Where is this "switch" we're supposed
> to throw that magically makes all these bad people turn into "glinda,
> the good witch of the north" and prace off to disney land to cavort with
> mickey mouse and all the other good people of the world?
>
> Of course, reality never really got in the way of your grandiose plans.
>
> -hop
[set BIG_BROTHER_MODE off]
Ooops, I don't think this will work very well...back to the drawing board.
--
eric_w...@mentorg.com -- and if you thought I was serious ... think again.
The preceding is *not* to be construed in any way as an official (or unofficial)
public policy statement by Mentor Graphics, Incorporated, my employer, or
any of its employees, legal representatives, affiliates, customers, or vendors.
Kaehno
On 23 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
I was wondering in all of my post what was obtuse or unclear, I never
thought that it was this opaque.
: >In that case, the 'criminals' per se, are not as readily available.
: I am assuming (that 'assume' word again) that PSB was addressing his ilk to
: specific individuals. I also presumed that they somehow made themselves
: 'available'. I don't think he engaged in mind reading or the lottery to
: select his victims.
You presume incorrectly. Reread the posts.
: By the way how do you define 'criminals'. I always thought of those people
: that could be hauled into a court of law (not public opinion) and be subject
: to fines or imprisonment. You appear to make no distinction between Child
: pornagraphers and Net abusers.
Criminals on the Net are different from the criminals IRL. In this
context, as I didn't think it would be unclear (go figure), I was
stating the Internet Criminal.
: Some generalization's you have made:
: >'the ultimate security device is the power to turn the computer off.' -
It was in response to your previous post. Don't clip or snip
information if you don't know what to do with it.
: This would appear to contradict my limited understanding of your comment on 2)
: below
: >'by highlighting the action, you encourage others to do it.' followed by
: >'You do realize that when something is surpressed, it has a
: >wonderful way of blossoming? Surpress it and you will find more
: >problems with it 'getting out of control' than you would have hoped for.'-
Let's see... I thought it would have been an obvious example and that I
wouldn't have to elaborate. I _did_ forget that some people have to
have information babyfed to them. An example of suppression blossoming
an act or behavior into exactly what they were trying to surpress: Old
England trying to supress the rebellious colonists shortly before July
4, 1776. Anymore detail and I'd think you illiterate.
: Then by your own words you are making the absolute worse response to this
: activity , and it ain't even illegal just not 'Nettiquette'.
: >'Consider that even child porn in itself isn't a dangerous thing.'
Again, don't snip unless you know what to do with it. Here, you clearly
are twisting my words as I was talking about two _different_ things
entirely. The 'act' of child porn in itself is NOT a dangerous thing.
It's how we react to it that makes it dangerous. I don't understand
what part of that you fail to comprehend.
: Has nothing to do with this specific post but one hellu'va generalization.
It was in direct response to what was being stated. If you'd included
that in the context it was used, you wouldn't be questioning that. Now
would you? Or would you do in spite?
: >I simply took his actions and
: >dealt with him specifically. I suppose you think I'm on a campaign or
: >something. That is an incorrect assessment. I simply read news from
: >day to day. In order to prevent an epidemic, you must work on the
: >cause.
: I agree and I say the child porn issue deserves at least the same diligence
: and attention.
Gee, this shocks me.
: >: 2) ignore (do these first 2 items look familiar?)
: >
: >No, ignoring and turning the computer off are two different things.
: Lost me.
Again, I don't see how I could have lost you. I simply responded to
what you stated. Maybe I should start using 4 letter words.
: >: 3) is not against the law (just the 'rules')
: >It's against 'Nettiquette'. Nettiquette can be defined as the 'law'
: >per se. In fact, nettiquette is common sense.
In this case, I was in reference to PSB and dumbell. I don't know
_where_ you got this insipid notion I was talking about child
pornography, but it's so ingrained in your psyche that there's little
room for expansion on to other topics, or so it would appear.
: Beg to differ if it is not against the criminal code it is 'opinion'. I'm
: pretty sure on that (at least I've never seen/heard anyone in jail because of)
: but maybe you should ask a lawyer/judge, would hate to see someone go to jail
: 'cause they twern't nice on duh net'.
Read above. I've got so many objections to what you're saying and so
little bandwidth to do it in.
: >: 4) that even if it persists hurts no one (no one goes to therapy, goes to
: >: court, no one loses a job or money, or would result in a criminal record).
: >Hrm... sound familiar with your issue at all?
: Lost me again. Again your comment appears to equate bad manners with
: felonious activity.
It wouldn't have lost you if you didn't snip the preceeding statements
to that. I'm wondering if you just fail to read or just posted
immediately and responded as you were going along. It seems that you
failed to read the article or you failed to comprehend simple English.
*shrug* I'm not one to figure that one out.
: >Free speech includes { Flooding email boxes, Making unfounded
: >accusations (which could be determined as libel), faking email addresses
: >to create fictious support for an empty cause, blathering on about
: >something that is moot anyway, and general waste of bandwidth replying
: >to above said just to post. } ?
:
: Offensive as it is, yes. Did you think it only applied to politics, race or
: sex?
I don't know whereever you got that from. I rather don't think it
applies. Free speech is not allowing someone to continue to harass you.
That's not only ethically wrong, but illegal (in terms of violating a
customer's terms of service with their ISP). I don't think you can
justify that.
: 1) In this case 'documenting it' can make me as guilty as the perp. That is
: not the type of result I'm looking for.
Results at all costs or no?
: 2) Is the ISP obligated (legally not Nettalogically) to do something about it?
: Why risk if there is no reward? Simply shutting down the offender in this
: case is not an appropriate response.
Yes and No. It depends on the actions and responsibilities the ISP
places on itself. And shutting down the offender is REALLY all the ISP
can do. I'm sorry if this isn't the action you are looking for. We
can't just go to their house and burn it.
: I realize that I missed the very beginning of the thread with PSB, I have a
: tendency to miss conversation beginnings. But I never saw the above
: recommendation anywhere in the thread. That to me is the appropriate response
: to PSB not the 'shame, shame, shame' that I did see.
I told myself that I would tolerate the abuse until I couldn't stand it
anymore or he just lost all sense of reality. When that happened,
that's when I took action. Taking action too soon or too late can be
equally as detrimental. I also chose to wait until it began to annoy
others so that I would not be accused of destroying an unsuspecting
newbie.
: Forgive me, Mr. (again I'm assuming) Kaehno, I don't mean to pick on you
: personally, and I hope these continuing posts are not perceived by you or the
: other readers as such. You do serve as a convenient focus for this argument
: and I feel you have tried to keep this civilized and, with the other
: attitudes on the net, I wish to say, thank you.
I have tried to point out arguments in this thread and others that
deserve to be looked at. At other times, I have tried to enhance the
points that are absolutely absurd to show them as such.
: Responsibilities first, rights second, not the other way round.
That's an action that doesn't always hold true. "No laws are absolute
including this one." - Albert Einstein.
Jeremy Nelson
***** IMPORTANT NOTE! ******
The following is a serious reply to a non-serious post. IHBT, IAAPW,
Yes, yes. Nevertheless, there will be some people who will think that the
previous posting had merit to it, which it didnt, by design. For the
benefit of anyone who might have actually thought that the previous posting
described a realistic schenario.
The original poster has disclaimed all seriousness from his post, so do not
take what i am replying to as serious statements of the original author.
Please.
*************************
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577 <ew...@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com> wrote:
>1: Research into artificial intelligence is indicated, hereinafter called Agents;
> said research would include, but not be limited to, the following:
>
> [A] The ability of Agents to recognize the more common forms of
> encryption and report them as "suspicious",
> [B] The ability of Agents to recognize movies, still pictures, and
> audio sounds,
> [C] The ability of Agents to recognize the human frame, and to determine,
> within a certain accuracy, whether said frame belongs to either a
> prepubescent or a pubescent before majority age, depending on
> certain parameters to be determined by section (2),
> [D] The ability of Agents to recognize certain specific acts, such as
> sodomy,
> [E] The ability of Agents to trace a communications path, and to determine,
> in conjunction with (1.D), whether said acts are illegal in the
> location of the donor, the recipient, or any transfer points along
> the way, should any such transfer points be relevant to the
> routing path,
> [F] The ability of Agents to intercept communications between two clients.
I _told_ you that a stipulation of the setup must be that you dont have
a sample implementaiton of the file to reference. You must go ONLY
on the name of the file. That is all that is ever transmitted over any
irc server, so assuming that any irc agent should or must have any more
knowledge than this is totaly preposterous.
> Note that encryption is *already* considered dangerous, to the point where
> software cannot be exported outside of the United States if it passes a
> certain "strength" of encryption.
This is simply not the case. The problems with encryption are wholy
political in nature and have nothing to do with the technology.
I make the assertion (and its my opinion) that the overt data sent over
an encrypted data stream is 100% legal, with no exceptions. To discover
an illegal data set from an unknown encrypted data stream requires
brute force decryption across all possible keys of all possible
encryption mechanisms. Do you think it would stand up in court if you
made claim that you found the one and only key and encryption mechanism,
to the exclusion of all other keys and mechanisms, that produces meaningful
data from unmeaningful data? And who says that when decrypted, the data
must be meaningful? Why cant i just make a large file of random numbers,
encrypt it, and send it off to a friend? If you manage to somehow
convolute this into a kiddie porn gif, am i guilty of child pornography?
Also, there is the other factor that TCP packets are unsequenced and
unreliable, and that the sequenceing and reliability is done *at the
protocol level*. Will you be able to detect the legality of individual
packets totaly out of context of the rest of the transmission? How?
>2: Research into the human frame so as to determine whether a given individual,
> when naked, would be considered prepubescent, below majority age, or
> at majority age, when viewed by the majority of individuals. Such research
> may also be relevant to other activites, e.g. drug agents.
This is preposterous. Human beings cant do this correctly.
How are you plnanning to teach a computer to do it?
> Note that race may be a factor here, as orientals, for example, develop at
> a slower rate by and large than whites, blacks, or other races. Agents
> would have to take this into account.
What about midgets? or people who just dont have as many hormones?
>3: Protocol changes to RFC1459 (which defines IRC) to implement (1.E).
>
>4: Protocol changes to TCP/IP and other relevant documents to implement (1.E).
> and (1.F). These may include, but are not limited to, changes to RFC1459.
>
> It is possible that TCP/IP could be traced as is (by putting monitoring
> points at every major router), but it would be simpler to change TCP/IP
> to allow a federal "rider" to tag along when required.
If youre only going to tag TCP, then ill be sure to retrofit UDP capabilities
onto DCC. Its not that hard. And if you dont think that we'll keep one step
ahead of this kind of stuff, then youre deluding yourself.
>> Please explicitly state the keystrokes that must be pressed in order
>> for "all these people to be gone"
>
>/KILL nickname
>
>would work, if one is an IRCop. (I think that's the command).
As anyone would have told you if you had bothered to ask, or if you had
bothered to do some research, /KILL has no effect *in pratice* but a
forcible kick from all current channels. And this force is only in effect
for the tenth of a second until the client re-establishes the server
connection and re-joins all the pre-existing channels. Every good client
does this automatically.
Until you K line them, and they find another server
Until you K line them on every server, and they go to another network
Until they are K lined on every network, and they set up their own network.
Theyre not going away, theyre just going somewhere else.
So why waste time putting up the front that youre doing anything about it
when everyone knows already that there isnt anything that _can_ be done about
it, so any actions that are done are simply window dressing and fraudulant.
>Ooops, I don't think this will work very well...back to the drawing board.
At least not in the way you described it, no, not at all.
Not even close to reality.
-hop
Charles W. Johnson
Thusly spake Therefore (the...@teleport.com) unto alt.irc:
>Tommy Galia (tomm...@pacbell.net) wrote in alt.irc.undernet on Tue, 20 Aug
>1996 20:17:41 -0700:
[snip]
>enforcement, but the thing about child porn is that it is quantifiable (if you
>are 7, its kinda clear) and thereby more easily enforceable.
I myself, however, have serious problems with the quantification in the USA.
Of course it's clear when the kid's 7. However, I really must say I fail to
see what is any more abusive and nonconsentual about porno with a 17 year
old and porno with an 18 year old [ceteris paribus]. A division somewhere
around 15 to 13 would be far more sane. Also, btw, how does one determine
the difference between a 17 y/o and an 18 y/o based on a pic? After all,
17 y/o porno pics are legally kiddie porn in the USA.
>> C:undernet is unmoderated and the point of undernet is so that people can
>> discuse what they want with other people. If the ircops start moderating it
>> then it will suck.
>Well, god yes. Is that what is being advocated in this thread? Yuck. No
>way. The ops should only be the technicians of a common carrier. I would not
>blame an op for reporting on someone they know is passing child porn around,
>but, no, not moderators. Hell, go to AOL if you want that.
>My position, on the other hand, is that the government has a clear interest in
>investigating and busting those who circulate child porn. And if they do it
>secretly (and they do) on the irc and/or get the cooperation of the irc ops in
>that effort, I say more power to them. Doesn't require any additional laws at
>all!
And what are they going to do? Join #!!!!!kidsexpics or whatever and ask
around for pics? That's going to get entrapment slapped on it by the defense.
Besides which, what will the law enforcement officials do? Barring IRCop
action, the most they could do is hope the user's ISP is running identd, and
send a complaint to the abuse maven at the users site. That's the problem
with this whole internet thingamabob when it comes to censorship. It's
quite anonymous. Many people (especially those interested in trading child
pornography, I suspect) are not willing to post their home addresses for
hundreds of thousands or even millions to see. How are the police going
to go about arresting someone when they don't even know who he is? I suppose
there are ways, but I really must ask if expending all this effort over
child pornography is really worth it. Doesn't our law enforcement have
something better to do? Like, um, arresting murderers, rapists, and the people
who originally produced the kiddie porn [as opposed to those who distribute
it]? You know, silly things like that....<insert sarcasm here>
Just a thought.
Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
--
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism channel operator
--
These opinions are mine. They may not be those of my employer or my internet
provider. They are almost certainly not those of Microsoft, Inc.
--
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list.
Violators will have complaints sent to their postmasters. DIE, you
scum-sucking braindead scourges of society!
Charles W. Johnson
Thusly spake Tony Miller (comput...@worldnet.att.net) unto alt.irc:
>mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
[snip]
>>Unfortunately I don't have a proposal and I am not aware of this being
>>suggested but it could be a possibility, a Guardian Angels-type approach.
>Right. Vigilantes like PSB patrolling the channels. Just what I'd
>like to see. Chatting with people wondering if every word I say were
>being monitored. Doesn't sound like much fun to me. Does it sound
>like fun to you?
>And how about the user with a grudge? I don't like you, so I turn you
>in to the witch hunters. You'd be forced to prove your innocence
>while they were pounding in the stake and piling up the wood.
Indeed. As an #atheism operator and an open democratic socialist, I
really must say I feel _personally_ threatened by the proposal that
civilians would be given the right to zap me because of my unfashionable
ism's. Although I must say that people like Kev (a _very_ Xian Undernet IRCop
don't allow their beliefs to cloud their judgement as to what should be
addressed by IRCops and what shouldn't, the prospect that hypochristians like
RevWhite would be given the authority to institute a de facto reign of terror
against whoever they disagree with is scary to me.
[snip]
>>>I have two little girls who are the light of my life. I would kill
>>>anyone who harmed them. But I'm not ready to buckle to a solution
>>>which traples on the rights of the countless innocents to possibly
>>>punish a couple of the guilty.
>>What I think I'm looking for is
>>1) a procedure/methodology be proposed/provided where as people become aware
>>in cyberspace of this activity (or any illegal activity) they have
>>channels/contacts thru which IRC ops and law enforcement can be notified and
>>have confidence that action will be taken. This is not an automated search
>>but would be initiated due to witnessing suspected illegal activity. If this
>>process already exists, I am not aware.
If you have some sort of sneaking suspicion in regards to illegal activity,
net abuses, etc., mail ab...@their.site [and possibly Cc: it to
postmaster or support, in case abuse isn't the local abuse maven]. Of course,
it's rather hard to put a finger on Winblows users who can change their
userid with a point and a click, but anonymity is a basic fact of life wit
this whole internet thingamabob.
>>2) Any blatant illegal sexual content (not encrypted) could be identified
(not
>>sure this is possible) via automated search of channel titles or conversation
>>content. I understand that in the Child molester community 'searching for a
>>new life' is code for 'I'm trolling for a children'. Is this desirable or
>>doable? I don't know. I am willing to discuss and explore. I believe the
>>tools to encourage the spread kiddie porn in cyberspace are readily apparent,
>>it will require effort to find countermeasures. I find offensive and
>>unAmerican to say simply 'there is nothing that can be done'.
<rant>
I just love how those wishing to abridge the free speech and privacy rights
of the multitudes to catch a few and mollycoddle the moral sensibilities of
a few more always call in the word "unAmerican". Wasn't there some document
written a couple centuries ago that says something about the items of free
speech and privacy? To me, what is against the ideals of every government in
the world that is based on the principles of freedom and equity is not
defacing the national flag or being a socialist or refusing to try to abridge
the rights of everyone in order to catch a few little bits of pond scum.
IMANHO, an attempt to force everyone to conform to the opposite through
legislation, McCarthyistic witch-hunts, etc. is what is truly "unAmerican."
</rant>
>I didn't know about that "molester phrase". Thank you for
>enlightening me. So I start a channel called "#ChildMolesters" where
>we all get together and discuss how to stop molestation, and some
>automated gizmo picks us up and turns us in to the FBI.
>Our illustrious officers armed with search warrants bust down your
>door and confiscate your computer equipment. You try to explain to
>them that you're one of the good guys, and they ask: "What were you
>doing in the channel called "#ChildMolesters". Go directly to jail.
>Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
If you wish to know about the just how well a pattern search works in this
kind of thing, take a gander at Undernet #bible, where all the following
nicks were until recently screened out by the channel bot as "blasphemous":
IamGOD
IhateGOD
God-damn
Godzilla
ILoveGOD
In re: convo monitoring, you'd have to institute de facto cracked ircd for
this. I am not willing to sacrifice my privacy to try and catch these little
pieces of pond scum, no matter how much I disagree with them. Also, I have
personally discussed child porn issues on #atheism before. Such a pattern
search would probably zap my discussion too.
And, btw, what would you scan channel names for? kiddie? kid? So much for
any number of valid channels. Molesters? Forget even the above example of
#ChildMolesters. If you apply this pattern searching, you could be G:lined
or reported to the FBI or whatever else is advocated under this Newt IRC
Order for joining #StopChildMolesters!
Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
--
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism operator
--
These opinions are mine. They may not be those of my employer or my internet
provider. They are almost certainly not those of Microsoft, Inc.
--
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list.
Violators will have complaints sent to their postmasters. DIE, you
scum-sucking braindead scourges of society!
--
Charles W. Johnson
Thusly spake Salt (mric...@hiwaay.net) unto alt.irc:
>In article <4vl00r$j...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>comput...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>
>>mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I would like to see the world free of these predators. But stepping
>>>>on your rights to do it is not something I'm willing to do. Would you
>>>>like us to have monitors in our homes watching us 24 hours a day ala
>>>>1984?
>>
>>>No. But I find hard to believe that is the 'only' alternative.
>>
>>But monitoring seems to be what you are actively proposing.
>>Monitoring of conversation either by "official" entities, or "citizen
>>vigilantes".
>Isn't this taking place already? Do you not monitor a channel before you
>participate? Why else do people collect or skip various channels. I'm
>suggesting that procedure be established to do so for a purpose.
Salt, that's a straw man and nothing more. People monitoring what goes on
in a channel before they decide to visit it regularly is a purely voluntary
personal system of choice of channels. OTOH, an admin monitoring conversation
through a cracked ircd, with the ability to G:line [or K:line, depending on
your net] your ass is someone deciding _for_ you what you should see and
what you shouldn't. Yes, IRC is a forum for partially moderated discussion.
No, this is not the job of IRCops to enforce. This is a local decision by
the chanops as to what content they wish to have on their channel. Stopping
network abuse is the IRCops' job, not unsavory content. Unsavory content
is the issue of the local chanops and a personal decision on your behalf as
to what "areas" of the net you will patronize.
[snip]
>>And how about the user with a grudge? I don't like you, so I turn you
>>in to the witch hunters. You'd be forced to prove your innocence
>>while they were pounding in the stake and piling up the wood.
>>
>>Now your reputation is sullied. do you think you'll ever get it back?
>>Or are you of the opinion that you have to break a few eggs to make an
>>omelette? :-(
>You imply this does not currently happen but could take place in the name of
>kiddie porn. I think the potential abuse already takes place - for other
>reasons. Implying taking up the kiddie porn issue would add to that burden
>leads me to think this is a BIG problem (kiddie porn) if it can have that
>effect. Else how does this change the current environment. I used to work
>Software Quality for the Army. Found out one thing real fast, I could only
>catch those failures that were unintentional. I could not find failures if
>the contractor was fraudulent. Any procedure proposed/provided will probably
>be abused. That hasn't stopped anyone from trying to come up with something
>for other perceived threats, why is this particular one so impossible'?????
Nobody is implying that this does not happen. The issue is whether or not
it should be _authorized_ action. If you want to give everyone the right
to zap what they deem to be unsavory content, why not just start your own net
and give everyone an O:line?
>>>>That would be like going to your town, and forcing you to patrol the
>>>>streets of your neighborhood for child molesters against your will.
>>>How could you 'make' anyone in cyberspace perform in this manner? Even if
>>>desirable (which I agree it is not) it wouldn't happen, coersion just won't
>>>work.
>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you who was proposing that the
>>admins and IRCops put a stop to this?
>I've asked that they participate to find a solution, if not a whole solution
>at least a way to attack the problem. Don't keep telling me 'there's nothing
>I can do', I get that from my kids and I don't accept it from them either.
Fine. What _do_ you intend to do about it please? I think we can pretty well
establish that pattern-matching on channel names won't work, and that
pattern-matching on conversation not only won't work, but will also violate
the privacy of everyone who uses the network.
The fact that private /msg's exist speaks for the intention of private
conversation. No-one ever said that a /msg was secure; for instance, a cracked
ircd would let an oper see everything that came through his server if he
chose. OTOH, it is rather obviously intended to be a forum for private
conversations. It's like a telephone. Obviously, illegal activities through
the phone line should be punished if found out about. However, are you going
to put a tap on _everone's_ line to find these criminals?
>>>2) Any blatant illegal sexual content (not encrypted) could be identified
>>>(not sure this is possible) via automated search of channel titles or
>>>conversation content. I understand that in the Child molester community
>>>'searching for a new life' is code for 'I'm trolling for a children'.
>>>Is this desirable or doable? I don't know. I am willing to discuss and
>>>explore. I believe the tools to encourage the spread kiddie porn in
>>>cyberspace are readily apparent,
>>>it will require effort to find countermeasures. I find offensive and
>>>unAmerican to say simply 'there is nothing that can be done'.
>>I didn't know about that "molester phrase". Thank you for
>>enlightening me. So I start a channel called "#ChildMolesters" where
>>we all get together and discuss how to stop molestation, and some
>>automated gizmo picks us up and turns us in to the FBI.
>>Our illustrious officers armed with search warrants bust down your
>>door and confiscate your computer equipment. You try to explain to
>>them that you're one of the good guys, and they ask: "What were you
>>doing in the channel called "#ChildMolesters". Go directly to jail.
>>Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
>Your key there is 'search warrants'. They have to show probable cause before
>they can obtain the warrants. As intelligent as our gov't is I do believe
>they would have to show something more than someone whispered the words 'child
>molestation' to take the action you suggest.
Well, then, wtf are we looking for? I'm afraid we haven't yet developed an
AI system that can discern a discussion of child molestation. And, btw, that
is not what you originally advocate. You originally suggested that we put
an "automated search" gizmo. And as you have been told, an automated search
gizmo _will not work_. Kiss perfectly valid channels like #KiddieSports and
#WildlifePics goodbye if you want to do that kind of crap. After all, they
pattern match *kiddie* and *pics*, respectively.
Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
--
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism channel operator
Keith D. Tyler
jo...@mindspring.com wrote:
: Isn't this the Dalnet newgroup and not the Undernet newsgroup?
From the headers:
: Path: shore!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.mindspring.com!usenet
: From: jo...@mindspring.com
: Newsgroups: alt.irc,alt.irc.undernet,alt.irc.dalnet,alt.irc.efnet
This thread is going to all of these in the third line.
--
"I know it's hard to prognosticate his future at this stage, but if he's
going to remain 0.4 gram and six-sided for the rest of his life, I'd say
euthanasia is our best bet." - Mark Leyner
Gadjit
In article <DwHp2...@cs.vu.nl>, ajo...@cs.vu.nl (Johnston A) wrote:
>Actualy Mr PSB has been identified as being the person using the nickname
>RevWhite on Undernet and being manager of channel #!!!!!!!!!!!!!KKK
>(give or take a !) He was globaly banned from undernet after numerous
>abuse and is now trying to get back at Undernet. This is the lowest of the
>lowest scum you can possibly find.
Re undertow :), was just thinking, i know a couple of other names you could
add to that "lowest of the low" list :)
Romee.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Taylor Web Focus Marketing Ph. 00 64 6 8786 135
gr...@webfocus.co.nz Fax 00 64 6 8786 135
Web Page Development Hawkes Bay - N.Z.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Gadjit
In article <4va9vd$i...@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>,
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
>CHILD PORN is unlike anything else on the net. It's very existance is
>I-L-L-E-G-A-L.
On the Internet?? , in many COUNTRIES yes, but internet does not BELONG, nor
CONFORM to any "country" "power" or jurisdictition...
> This is not a choice issue. What part of 'illegal' do you
>'free speech' advocates not understand. To possess or distribute child
>pornagraphy is a federal crime (at least last I looked, hell by now the
>Republicans may have repealed it).
Federal? oh i see, you are one of thoose narow minded people wo believes the
world revolves around the U.S.A and it's standards...
> Buy analogy your 'you don't have to look'
>argument says I shouldn't worry about drug dealing on my street corner unless
>I'm interested in buying.
Who says "you don't have to look" ?...
If you believe somone is breaking the law, can prove it and feel it is your
responsibility to stop it , then take action, don't sit here uttering
worthless garble at a newsgroup, phone the police and get some action taken,
people HAVE been known to do so in the past you know....
>I can only think that advocates for 'live and let live' for the child porn
>issue have no children. While I have no love for restriction on the rights
>of
>people to express themselves this is playing with matches in a puddle of
>gasoline.
NO. The Internet is a community, made up of, controlled and patronized by is
members. This escapism WE have created is perfect in that it is the
embodidment of what WE want it to be, without restriction....
> What consenting adults want to do is none of my business, if you
>want to express your favorite methods of pleasing/torturing your partner(s) I
>may not agree but THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS.
ahh.... some wisdom after all...
> What happens with 'our' children is
>very much mine, I've seen too much damage done. When it hits home or you
>have
>a firstperson encounter, this will no longer be an esoteric argument, no
>longer a 'free speech' right it becomes time to 'lock & load'. This is a
>singular case, to me, that you can't err too much on the conservative side.
>
>If we don't care for our young we have no future as a society or species.
>Don't know about you but I want them to be good upstanding taxpayers so I can
>retire on their earnings.
>Nuff said,
>Salt
Agreed.
It seems we have much talk here and little action.
The Internet is OUR community, it's OUR home, and OUR playground, and it is up
to each of us to plagerise thoose transgressors whom seek to destroy the world
WE have built by tearing out the very soul of it. By tainting it with visions
of fear, terror, anguish and pain. People who replace the joy and fun of the
Internet, with darkness and fear .
I do not want to see people in our community who cause pain to it, who cause
pain to others. Our community has no place for thoose who create victims.
Let no power or principality govern the fate of our community, take action in
the appropriate means, and let the spirt of the Internet, fun, peace, laughter
and happiness reign.
Gadjit
This post replies to the topic or subject of this thread...
"Undernet can shut PSB up, but refuses to"
I'd like to try to explain the situation , thoose in authority on the Undernet
face.
It's fairly simple really.
If the authorities on the Undernet ACKNOWLEDGE that they are responsible for
the activites of thier users, they become instantly liable and prosecutable by
the powers above them.
this reflects directly on the situation "Undernet should ban PSB because he
does criminal things"
Should the Undernet authorities ackowledge that PSB is conducting illegal
activites on THIER servers, they admit responsibilty for his actions whilst
using thier servers.
The reprecussions of such are beyond what volunteers who give thier time and
resources so that we ALL may chat wish to bear.
It is not a matter of refusing to, as most if not ALL authorities on the
Undernet despise criminal activity on the network that is thier own, but more
a matter of, we can't remove this person from our network for fear of being
persecuted by higher powers as "allowing crimanl activity to go on".
It is safer for THEM, to deny ALL knowledge and responsibilty , than
to admit these things go on , and risk persecution.
Gadjit
In article <4vfdlo$9...@news.inc.net>, nel...@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson) wrote:
>Terrie <ter...@calvin.spiff.net> wrote:
>>Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
>>on on their machines! You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
>>I'm sorry, but if someone is openly transferring illegal stuff though
>>your machine, and you know about it, and ignore it, like these IRC
>>administrators do, then you are an accessory to that crime.
On the contrary, read my earlier post.
If they DIDN'T ignore it, the would become accessories.
>Describe, in detail, the technical means that can be used by an irc
>server operator to prohibit the sending of all child pornography. This
>means must be able to 100% accurately be able to detect the legally of any
>transmitted file given only by the filename. Samples of the file being
>transmitted will not be available for reference. Complete this assignment
>before the government "takes over irc"
fine you write a program that uses very few resources on an IRC server, and
can sucessfully DECODE an octel stream in transit to descern the contents and
then ,should it be an image file, wether or not the file is of an illicit or
illegal nature, WITHOUT breaking any privacy acts.
point made?
>Put up or shut up. The only material you have to determine the legality
>will be a porn number, a machine number, and a filename. Until you tell
>us exactly how we're supposed to "get rid of the kiddie porn" from that
>information, youll just be dismissed as another idealistic simpleton.
ok, next time i DCC someone my photgraph, i'll name it
child-porn.pic.no_1.gif. does that mean i get arrested?
>>And all it takes is a few
>>keystrokes from an IrCop and these people could be gone.
>
>The more you regurgitate abject stupidity such as this, it becomes so
>much more the obvious that those we argue with really have no idea what
>theyre talking about. This does not cease to amaze me.
>
>Please explicitly state the keystrokes that must be pressed in order
>for "all these people to be gone"
>
>Oh. You havent any idea how to really get rid of them? Didnt think so.
Tommy Galia
No I don't belive that child porn should exist but your trying to hit
it at the wrong end. So what if one more person has a copy of this
picture. More damage is not done to the child beacuse the picture is in
the hands of another perv. The actull damage is done at the time the
child is striped and the picture is taken. So instead of concentrating
so much attention on stoping it from being distributed in the end it
does nothing. I say concetrait 100% on stoping the picture from ever
being taken. Geting rid of the demand and the middle man is imposable. I
know that stoping all child porn is impossable but this I feel is the
best way to stop it beacuse 1: It keeps the child from ever being hurt
2: It therefor stops the picture from being distributed (Isn't this what
everyone was bitching about.) And most importantly 3: None of my rights
are being given up to do it this way.
Salt
In article <DwMtz...@eskimo.com>, cw...@eskimo.com says...
I liked that part.
<snip>
>Nobody is implying that this does not happen. The issue is whether or not
>it should be _authorized_ action. If you want to give everyone the right
>to zap what they deem to be unsavory content, why not just start your own net
>and give everyone an O:line?
>
<snip>
>
>Fine. What _do_ you intend to do about it please? I think we can pretty well
>establish that pattern-matching on channel names won't work, and that
>pattern-matching on conversation not only won't work, but will also violate
>the privacy of everyone who uses the network.
>
I am not an IRCop or IRCanything. To me that is part of the point of this
dicussion. What can't be done has been well rehersed by this time. I am not
suggesting that users be Klined or Oed or whatever (I do not know the
vernacular). I am asking/suggesting/pleading that:
1) Quit saying it someone else's problem. This medium is 'mine' as much as
any roadway. When your on the highway and you notice a 'Harvey Wallbanger'
what do you do? Before the days of CB or Cellphone there wasn't much, usually
get out of the way. However with this technology (CB/Cellphone) we can report
to law officials and hopefully have the danger removed prior to someone
getting hurt. If we are willing to strike at net abusers why not the kiddie
porn? The tools won't be the same nor the corresponding actions. I don't
want these people off the net I want them incarcerated (sp?) or under a
doctors care (which ever works).
2) Let's use the NetHead intelligence thats available out there in cyberspace
and try to find a solution. The alternative is to ignore (to me a receipe for
real trouble) or wait for the gov't to do something about it. My experience
with that has been you never bump your problems up unless your ready for the
solutions they may provide.
>
>
>The fact that private /msg's exist speaks for the intention of private
>conversation. No-one ever said that a /msg was secure; for instance, a
cracked
>ircd would let an oper see everything that came through his server if he
>chose. OTOH, it is rather obviously intended to be a forum for private
>conversations. It's like a telephone. Obviously, illegal activities through
>the phone line should be punished if found out about. However, are you going
>to put a tap on _everone's_ line to find these criminals?
>
I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact phase
is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
<snip>.
>
>Well, then, wtf are we looking for? I'm afraid we haven't yet developed an
>AI system that can discern a discussion of child molestation. And, btw, that
>is not what you originally advocate. You originally suggested that we put
>an "automated search" gizmo. And as you have been told, an automated search
>gizmo _will not work_. Kiss perfectly valid channels like #KiddieSports and
>#WildlifePics goodbye if you want to do that kind of crap. After all, they
>pattern match *kiddie* and *pics*, respectively.
>
>Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
What I am advocating is let's attack the kiddie porn issue with the same verve
that we reserve for net abusers and not walk away from it. That is all I have
ever advocated.
Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
good ideas or be they bad. That's the reason for this discussion (to me) is
to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the argument.
If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
with.
How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected? What
are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
enforcement?
This is not a 'magic wand' issue, where we can wave the wand and the problem
is magically solved. I happily accept any suggestions to improve the
situation and reject the attitude that nothing can be done. This is my
neighborhood too. If I don't want someone to endanger myself and my neighbors
then I have to be willing to speak/act to do something about it. To me the
standard has be planted and the battle joined now it's a matter of which side
are you on and how we fight.
Salt
(consider myself religious heathen)
Tenebreux
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
> Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
> good ideas or be they bad. That's the reason for this discussion (to me) is
> to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
> it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
> time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
> this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
> its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
> discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the
argument.
> If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
> with.
Ok, here's a brainstorm for you. The reason people say it cannot be done
is because it truly cannot be done. Besides the fact that your plans to
monitor all public and private channel on IRC has the stench of Orwell,
IRC is a multi-national resource, and other countries seem to get pissy
when Americans tell them how to run their lives.
Here's what you CAN do. Go buy a computer and run it as an independent
IRC server not connected to any other servers. Crack the ircd so you can
monitor all traffic. Then advertise your irc server as "safe" because you
reign with an iron fist.
Have fun!
Salt
In article <4vq9v1$5u0...@ramhb.co.nz>, webf...@ramhb.co.nz says...
<snip>
>
>On the Internet?? , in many COUNTRIES yes, but internet does not BELONG, nor
>CONFORM to any "country" "power" or jurisdictition...
>
for messing with the Internet?
>
>Federal? oh i see, you are one of thoose narow minded people wo believes the
>world revolves around the U.S.A and it's standards...
>
I believe there is right and wrong, and this is wrong. My country of origin
is irrelvant.
>
>Who says "you don't have to look" ?...
>If you believe somone is breaking the law, can prove it and feel it is your
>responsibility to stop it , then take action, don't sit here uttering
>worthless garble at a newsgroup, phone the police and get some action taken,
>people HAVE been known to do so in the past you know....
Is that my only alternative - to play the part of the Lone Ranger? If one has
no choice so be it. That being the case, then don't complain of my methods or
tactics to accomplish my goal.
>
>NO. The Internet is a community, made up of, controlled and patronized by is
>members. This escapism WE have created is perfect in that it is the
>embodidment of what WE want it to be, without restriction....
Is this the 'community' you want? I've seen the Internet described as many
things but not 'perfect'.
>
>> What consenting adults want to do is none of my business, if you
>>want to express your favorite methods of pleasing/torturing your partner(s)
I
>>may not agree but THAT IS YOUR BUSINESS.
>
>ahh.... some wisdom after all...
>
<snip>
>It seems we have much talk here and little action.
>The Internet is OUR community, it's OUR home, and OUR playground, and it is
up
>to each of us to plagerise thoose transgressors whom seek to destroy the
world
>WE have built by tearing out the very soul of it. By tainting it with visions
>of fear, terror, anguish and pain. People who replace the joy and fun of the
>Internet, with darkness and fear .
>I do not want to see people in our community who cause pain to it, who cause
>pain to others. Our community has no place for thoose who create victims.
>Let no power or principality govern the fate of our community, take action in
>the appropriate means, and let the spirt of the Internet, fun, peace,
laughter
>and happiness reign.
>
>Romee.
I agree with your philosophy. I got started on this thread due to critism of
PSB actions against perceived child molesters. While I can't say I endorse
his actions at least he was taking some. He was widely condemmed/threatened
and harrassed. This to me is the wrong argument. The people that are willing
to fight these battles need help. They should be provided the most effective
tools available. They shouldn't be told don't fight, just acquiess. More
action is required but action that helps the cause not hurt it.
Salt
Salt
In article <4vqb7k$5u0...@ramhb.co.nz>, webf...@ramhb.co.nz says...
>
>In article <4vfdlo$9...@news.inc.net>, nel...@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson)
wrote:
>>Terrie <ter...@calvin.spiff.net> wrote:
>>>Don't tell me these IRC server sysops have no control over what is going
>>>on on their machines! You can always yank the plug out of the wall!
>>>I'm sorry, but if someone is openly transferring illegal stuff though
>>>your machine, and you know about it, and ignore it, like these IRC
>>>administrators do, then you are an accessory to that crime.
>
>On the contrary, read my earlier post.
>If they DIDN'T ignore it, the would become accessories.
>
Read previous post on responibility. I think there is more than a fair amount
of truth/accuracy in it. On the salient point above however I think you err.
The issue is awareness - if you are aware of a crime being committed and do
not intervene the case can be made for 'accessory after the fact' or possibly
even "before the fact' if you were aware of a pattern. If the op is unaware I
believe he would have an out. What happens if someone on the IRC raises a
flag to him and he does nothing?
Salt
Tenebreux
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
> In article <4vq9v1$5u0...@ramhb.co.nz>, webf...@ramhb.co.nz says...
> <snip>
> >
> >On the Internet?? , in many COUNTRIES yes, but internet does not BELONG, nor
> >CONFORM to any "country" "power" or jurisdictition...
> >
> If that were truly the case then why was that college student in federal
court
> for messing with the Internet?
Because while no one person OWNS the Internet, Americans can be tried in
American courts for breaking American laws. I'm sure that somebody who
likes to waste American resources by whining about IRC from a *.nasa.gov
site can understand that.
> >Who says "you don't have to look" ?...
> >If you believe somone is breaking the law, can prove it and feel it is your
> >responsibility to stop it , then take action, don't sit here uttering
> >worthless garble at a newsgroup, phone the police and get some action taken,
> >people HAVE been known to do so in the past you know....
>
> Is that my only alternative - to play the part of the Lone Ranger? If
one has
> no choice so be it. That being the case, then don't complain of my
methods or
> tactics to accomplish my goal.
Wow, I didn't know fascism was so big in the NASA community. You have no
choice, but you can be damned certain I will complain about your methods
and tactics just as loudly as you whine about kiddie porn getting to you
if you *do* use offensive methods.
Moral outrage, either affected or genuine, is never an excuse for excess.
You have the right to follow American law. If you don't like that, move
elsewhere or get off the internet.
Out of curiosity, Mr. Richter, what is it you do at NASA that let's you
spend your time and MY money on things like Usenet and IRC?
Salt
In article <32210B...@pacbell.net>, tomm...@pacbell.net says...
>
>No I don't belive that child porn should exist but your trying to hit
>it at the wrong end. So what if one more person has a copy of this
>picture. More damage is not done to the child beacuse the picture is in
>the hands of another perv.
I disagree, it helps maintain or extend the market. I am only suggesting
striking at those that 'expose' themselves.
>The actull damage is done at the time the
>child is striped and the picture is taken. So instead of concentrating
>so much attention on stoping it from being distributed in the end it
>does nothing. I say concetrait 100% on stoping the picture from ever
>being taken. Geting rid of the demand and the middle man is imposable. I
>know that stoping all child porn is impossable but this I feel is the
>best way to stop it beacuse 1: It keeps the child from ever being hurt
>2: It therefor stops the picture from being distributed (Isn't this what
>everyone was bitching about.) And most importantly 3: None of my rights
>are being given up to do it this way.
That is the final solution - that no child be abused and no one's rights
violated. I can't think of how to preempt the picture being made. To dectect
a crime evidence must exist (hence the problem we're discussing). To preempt
the act would require skills beyound a cpu or human capability. It would
require extensive psyco tests that are more intrusive than anything proposed
in this forum. While desirable, I can't even begin to comprehend how to do
this and I would fear a gov't that actually tried to implement it.
As for the 'demand and middlemen', while they can't be eleminated they can be
reduced or forced in such a hostile environment that maybe they figure there
is something else to get their jollies with that isn't so much grief. I think
this is an attainable goal. It will probably never be enough but at least WE
can say WE tried.
Salt
M. D. Yesowitch
> From: mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt)
> I am not an IRCop or IRCanything. To me that is part of the point of this
> dicussion. What can't be done has been well rehersed by this time. I am not
> suggesting that users be Klined or Oed or whatever (I do not know the
> vernacular). I am asking/suggesting/pleading that:
I will give you a true life example of something that happened.
I saved some of the mail from this discussion (and private mail
related ones) to a file called warezporn so that I could find it
again, that being about the most descriptive title I could come up
with.
I then dcc'd that information to a few fellow EBOAI. Were someone
monitoring dcc request I could be in serious trouble even though they
had no idea what was actually in the file.
Other problems.
1) if they ask me for the file, that's entrapment
2) if they receive the file without proper prior legal permission,
they are breaking a law as much as anyone else who receives illegal
material.
3) if they don't receive the file but guess based on the name or what
channel I'm on (this has been previously stated) then they are
unjustly persecuting me. Not that they can't do this, but _I_ as the
persecuted certainly wouldn't be too too happy about it.
> >The fact that private /msg's exist speaks for the intention of private
> >conversation. No-one ever said that a /msg was secure; for instance, a
> cracked
> >ircd would let an oper see everything that came through his server if he
> >chose. OTOH, it is rather obviously intended to be a forum for private
> >conversations. It's like a telephone. Obviously, illegal activities through
> >the phone line should be punished if found out about. However, are you going
> >to put a tap on _everone's_ line to find these criminals?
> >
> I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact phase
> is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
Private messages ARE the contact phase.
In the event of DCC the intial handshake is sent through the server
via private messages with control characters in them. Once the
connection is established, however, the servers drop out of the
communication loop (therefore in spite of all claims, files are NOT
being sent through IRC servers and therefore you can make a case for
them not being sent through IRC at all, (for example: two people meet
in a hotel lobby and and one says to the other "lets ditch this hotel
and go put this guy in his coffin" is the hotel management who wasn't
anywhere near the conversation responsible for the subsequent murder
if in fact they mean murder and not that they have to go be
pallbearers at a funeral?)
If the discussion is entirely by private message, there is no intial
handshake beyond the server connection. Please clarify what you're
looking for.
> How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
I don't understand this question. Big channels handle literally
screens of stuff per second. The servers handle as much as 2.5MB on
netsplit rejoins.
> messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected? What
The servers pass the message along until it reaches everyone it's
supposed to or until they vanish because of a problem reaching the
recipient (ie:netsplit).
> are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
Currently there aren't any. governments have been known to enlist the
help of IRCers to proof cases against a suspect by asking them to record
all correspondance with the suspect, but these are by and large
individual and well targetted operations.
Server admins and server operators CAN BE PROSECUTED for receiving
illegal materials even if they claim there were doing it as a "clean
up" measure. Because they are not empowered officals of their
government (unless individuals know differently) they can not legally
attempt to prosecute distributers of illegal materials. They can ban
and K:line but again, how do you prove it without breaking the law?
> Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
> enforcement?
As has been pointed out. If I join a channel #Warezd it will come up
in a keyword for #warez however it might be merely a discussion of how
to eliminate warez from you computer or combat it on the net.
-m
who doesn't believe that religion has anything to do with it.
****************************************************************************
M.D. Yesowitch yeso...@rocza.kei.com
All Flames to: women-not-to-...@kei.com
http://www.kei.com/homepages/yesowitc/
Salt
In article <Pine.SOL.3.94.960823135011.3933D-100000@goodguy>,
ico...@goodnet.com says...
>
>On 23 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
>
>I was wondering in all of my post what was obtuse or unclear, I never
>thought that it was this opaque.
>
>: >In that case, the 'criminals' per se, are not as readily available.
>
>: I am assuming (that 'assume' word again) that PSB was addressing his ilk to
>: specific individuals. I also presumed that they somehow made themselves
>: 'available'. I don't think he engaged in mind reading or the lottery to
>: select his victims.
>
>You presume incorrectly. Reread the posts.
I tried. Couldn't. Information would be appreciated.
>
>: By the way how do you define 'criminals'. I always thought of those people
>: that could be hauled into a court of law (not public opinion) and be
subject
>: to fines or imprisonment. You appear to make no distinction between Child
>: pornagraphers and Net abusers.
>
>Criminals on the Net are different from the criminals IRL. In this
>context, as I didn't think it would be unclear (go figure), I was
>stating the Internet Criminal.
>
>: Some generalization's you have made:
>
>: >'the ultimate security device is the power to turn the computer off.' -
>
>It was in response to your previous post. Don't clip or snip
>information if you don't know what to do with it.
That's always a problem with sniping do my best to keep in context. As for
the 'criminal' point, I beg to differ, you did not make that distinction in
your original post but quite the opposite. (By the way, haven't you done some
snipping of your own for this post?)
>
>: This would appear to contradict my limited understanding of your comment on
2)
>: below
>
>: >'by highlighting the action, you encourage others to do it.' followed by
>: >'You do realize that when something is surpressed, it has a
>: >wonderful way of blossoming? Surpress it and you will find more
>: >problems with it 'getting out of control' than you would have hoped for.'-
>
>Let's see... I thought it would have been an obvious example and that I
>wouldn't have to elaborate. I _did_ forget that some people have to
>have information babyfed to them. An example of suppression blossoming
>an act or behavior into exactly what they were trying to surpress: Old
>England trying to supress the rebellious colonists shortly before July
>4, 1776. Anymore detail and I'd think you illiterate.
Let me follow this. The orginial post (on PSB - where I came in) PSB was
being blasted for the actions he took against perceived 'child molesters'.
Your response to his perceived activity was to file a complaint to have him
removed/deleted/expunged (or whatever the IRC can do) from the net. I jump in
saying that something should be done to stop 'kidde porn' activity on the net
and that is the problem that should be addressed. You respond with your
'surpress' maxium.
It appeared 'obvious' to me. Using small words - you have no problem dealing
with net offenders but can't come up with a way to deal criminal offenders.
Not only that, but the criminal offender has 'rights' (to continue without
interference) while PSB (by comparison) does not.
>
>: Then by your own words you are making the absolute worse response to this
>: activity , and it ain't even illegal just not 'Nettiquette'.
>
>: >'Consider that even child porn in itself isn't a dangerous thing.'
>
>Again, don't snip unless you know what to do with it. Here, you clearly
>are twisting my words as I was talking about two _different_ things
>entirely. The 'act' of child porn in itself is NOT a dangerous thing.
Simply the 'act' is illegal. Someone has to suffer for 'child porn' to exist
in the first place. I think this is where we truly differ and will never
resolve. If you can't perceive the 'act' as dangerous and damaging then I
must agree there is no resolution - I will never understand your argument and
you will never understand mine.
Unfortunately the results of this standoff are unequal. Your understanding of
how the IRC operates places you in a position to find a solution (potentially)
which you have stated you will not do. My ignorance limits my ability to
respond to either, posts similar to these (wake up calls) or actions similar
to PSBs. I have seen no one, yourself included, provide a 3rd option. If I am
given no alternative but A or B then you shouldn't complain which I choose,
because you were asked and chose to do nothing.
>It's how we react to it that makes it dangerous. I don't understand
>what part of that you fail to comprehend.
>
>: Has nothing to do with this specific post but one hellu'va generalization.
>
>It was in direct response to what was being stated. If you'd included
>that in the context it was used, you wouldn't be questioning that. Now
>would you? Or would you do in spite?
I was trying to point out that there were two problems:
1) someone's abuse of the net and the actions taken.
2) someone(s) abuse of children and no action taken. In essence,
tolerated/encouraged by the refusal to take action. Condemnation of someones
action taken when others apparently fail to either act or become involved.
You appear to want to have both ways. The simple problems I will smash with
my selfrighteous indignation and keyboard (your post to the IRC). The
difficult problem I will ignore because it isn't so simple (1st Amendment,
suppress maxium)
>
>: >I simply took his actions and
>: >dealt with him specifically. I suppose you think I'm on a campaign or
>: >something. That is an incorrect assessment. I simply read news from
>: >day to day. In order to prevent an epidemic, you must work on the
>: >cause.
>
>: I agree and I say the child porn issue deserves at least the same diligence
>: and attention.
>
>Gee, this shocks me.
Given your previous statements I'm not suprised.
>
>: >: 2) ignore (do these first 2 items look familiar?)
>: >
>: >No, ignoring and turning the computer off are two different things.
>
>: Lost me.
>
>Again, I don't see how I could have lost you. I simply responded to
>what you stated. Maybe I should start using 4 letter words.
For the problem of child porn - these were your suggested solutions were they
not. I don't think they came from another conversation. Yet when I suggested
the same potential solutions for PSB, you did not consider them (both)
appropriate. Why? Isn't what's good for the goose good for the gander? Even
if in the case of child porn it is insufficient.
As for 4 letter words, straight english has not made your argument
overpowering (in my opinion). If you think their addition will help, feel
free.
>
>: >: 3) is not against the law (just the 'rules')
>
>: >It's against 'Nettiquette'. Nettiquette can be defined as the 'law'
>: >per se. In fact, nettiquette is common sense.
>
>In this case, I was in reference to PSB and dumbell. I don't know
>_where_ you got this insipid notion I was talking about child
>pornography, but it's so ingrained in your psyche that there's little
>room for expansion on to other topics, or so it would appear.
>
>: Beg to differ if it is not against the criminal code it is 'opinion'. I'm
>: pretty sure on that (at least I've never seen/heard anyone in jail because
of)
>: but maybe you should ask a lawyer/judge, would hate to see someone go to
jail
>: 'cause they twern't nice on duh net'.
>
>Read above. I've got so many objections to what you're saying and so
>little bandwidth to do it in.
You made the statements and the distinctions. I propose if you don't like the
sound be more careful of what you say/propose. (By the way, your
repartee/satire appears to be suffering.) Been trying real hard to say, isn't
there something wrong with this picture, where we have no conflict discussing
actions taken to punish an abuser 'of' the Net when on the other hand we will
ignore abusers 'on' the Net. (These are the smallest words I can use to
explain my point.) To me there should be remedies for both but not the same.
I perceive 'criminal' as serious. You comments on 'Nettiquette' appeared to
me an effort to trivialize the discussion. This is the real world and it
isn't a joke to me. I don't believe I've ever intimated anything else.
I used to have arguments over the Bible with a girl. For every point she made
she would back up with scripture. If I made a counterpoint also using
scripture her pat reply was 'Well, the devil know the Bible better than
anybody." Your responses remind me of that - my (your) answer is
authoritative and yours (mine) is a misrepresentation of the facts.
If the remainder of your argument was a strong as the initial offering I think
you saved us both a lot of bandwidth.
>
>: >: 4) that even if it persists hurts no one (no one goes to therapy, goes
to
>: >: court, no one loses a job or money, or would result in a criminal
record).
>
>: >Hrm... sound familiar with your issue at all?
>
>: Lost me again. Again your comment appears to equate bad manners with
>: felonious activity.
>
>It wouldn't have lost you if you didn't snip the preceeding statements
>to that. I'm wondering if you just fail to read or just posted
>immediately and responded as you were going along. It seems that you
>failed to read the article or you failed to comprehend simple English.
>*shrug* I'm not one to figure that one out.
This appeared your second attempt to trivialize the issue and provide no
distinction between someone abusing the net and someone abusing children. (Is
there in word in the preceding you did not understand?) That is why I made
the statement. This is not a 'snipping' issue. Either I misread or I caught
your hand in the cookie jar. Based on your argument I believe the latter.
As for the snipping in general, it is my attempt to stay on the issue. If
something is lost I accept the responsibility and will try to use more care in
the future. I would really like to get away from reposting everything in its
entirety. But, if it serves a purpose ...
>
>: >Free speech includes { Flooding email boxes, Making unfounded
>: >accusations (which could be determined as libel), faking email addresses
>: >to create fictious support for an empty cause, blathering on about
>: >something that is moot anyway, and general waste of bandwidth replying
>: >to above said just to post. } ?
>:
>: Offensive as it is, yes. Did you think it only applied to politics, race
or
>: sex?
>
>I don't know whereever you got that from. I rather don't think it
>applies. Free speech is not allowing someone to continue to harass you.
>That's not only ethically wrong, but illegal (in terms of violating a
>customer's terms of service with their ISP). I don't think you can
>justify that.
>
The existance of 'kidde porn' 'harasses' me and my children, it is 'illegal'
(10yrs in the federal pen I believe), what is left to justify (by your rules)?
How can you continue to contend that Net abuse is not a Free Speech issue
while 'child porn' is? That is the point that escapes me.
>: 1) In this case 'documenting it' can make me as guilty as the perp. That
is
>: not the type of result I'm looking for.
>
>Results at all costs or no?
I don't sign myself 'kamekazie' because I don't believe in it. That and I
don't see where me going to jail solves the problem. If it comes to that, I
will have to reconsider. A lot of civil disobedince actions got started from
this standpoint. So the company I would keep wouldn't be all that bad.
>
>: 2) Is the ISP obligated (legally not Nettalogically) to do something about
it?
>: Why risk if there is no reward? Simply shutting down the offender in this
>: case is not an appropriate response.
>
>Yes and No. It depends on the actions and responsibilities the ISP
>places on itself. And shutting down the offender is REALLY all the ISP
>can do. I'm sorry if this isn't the action you are looking for. We
>can't just go to their house and burn it.
That has not been recommended even methaphorically (just off with their
heads). Only that, action should be taken and let that be the core of
discussion - what action can be taken?
Why at a minimum can you not alert the authorities? Shutting him down does
not stop him from his illegal activities. As you so noted he/she merely moves
to another location.
That is what makes the difference to me. If someone breaks 'Nettiquette' you
act. If someone distributes 'kidde porn' on your IRC you are unconcerned,
tantamount to, if I see it, I don't believe it.
>
>: I realize that I missed the very beginning of the thread with PSB, I have a
>: tendency to miss conversation beginnings. But I never saw the above
>: recommendation anywhere in the thread. That to me is the appropriate
response
>: to PSB not the 'shame, shame, shame' that I did see.
>
>I told myself that I would tolerate the abuse until I couldn't stand it
>anymore or he just lost all sense of reality. When that happened,
>that's when I took action. Taking action too soon or too late can be
>equally as detrimental. I also chose to wait until it began to annoy
>others so that I would not be accused of destroying an unsuspecting
>newbie.
Your restraint is to be commended.
>
>: Forgive me, Mr. (again I'm assuming) Kaehno, I don't mean to pick on you
>: personally, and I hope these continuing posts are not perceived by you or
the
>: other readers as such. You do serve as a convenient focus for this
argument
>: and I feel you have tried to keep this civilized and, with the other
>: attitudes on the net, I wish to say, thank you.
>
>I have tried to point out arguments in this thread and others that
>deserve to be looked at. At other times, I have tried to enhance the
>points that are absolutely absurd to show them as such.
Now who's making the generalization.
>
>: Responsibilities first, rights second, not the other way round.
>
>That's an action that doesn't always hold true. "No laws are absolute
>including this one." - Albert Einstein.
I contend only with the former do the latter exist. Back to my engineering
'test' - I believe this is correct 8 out of 10 times and therefore meets the
test. If you have a better test I'm listening.
>----
>Lead Technical Support Specialist
>IRC Administrator
>ico...@goodnet.com / irca...@goodnet.com
>ico...@netzone.com
>
Salt
Salt
In article <zeus-26089...@ppp51.acadiacom.net>, ze...@acadiacom.net says...
>
> mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
>
>> Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
>> good ideas or be they bad. That's the reason for this discussion (to me) is
>> to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
>> it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
>> time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
>> this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
>> its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
>> discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the
>argument.
>> If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
>> with.
>
>is because it truly cannot be done. Besides the fact that your plans to
>monitor all public and private channel on IRC has the stench of Orwell,
>IRC is a multi-national resource, and other countries seem to get pissy
>when Americans tell them how to run their lives.
>
>Here's what you CAN do. Go buy a computer and run it as an independent
>IRC server not connected to any other servers. Crack the ircd so you can
>monitor all traffic. Then advertise your irc server as "safe" because you
>reign with an iron fist.
>
>Have fun!
Please turn down the voltage, I fear I have been blinded by your intellect and the force of
your argument. (They have mouthspray for problems like that.)
Salt
>Ok, here's a brainstorm for you. The reason people say it cannot be done
>is because it truly cannot be done. Besides the fact that your plans to
>monitor all public and private channel on IRC has the stench of Orwell,
>IRC is a multi-national resource, and other countries seem to get pissy
>when Americans tell them how to run their lives.
>
>Here's what you CAN do. Go buy a computer and run it as an independent
>IRC server not connected to any other servers. Crack the ircd so you can
>monitor all traffic. Then advertise your irc server as "safe" because you
>reign with an iron fist.
>
>Have fun!
Please, turn down the voltage - I have been blinded by your intellect and the
force of your argument. (They have mouthwash for problems like that.)
Salt
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally somebody that has provided reasoning
with their statements. I feel as if I finally may be leaving the wilderness.
In article <4vsfh5$d...@kragar.kei.com>, yeso...@rocza.kei.com says...
>
>> From: mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt)
>> In article <DwMtz...@eskimo.com>, cw...@eskimo.com says...
>
>> I am not an IRCop or IRCanything. To me that is part of the point of this
>> dicussion. What can't be done has been well rehersed by this time. I am
not
>> suggesting that users be Klined or Oed or whatever (I do not know the
>> vernacular). I am asking/suggesting/pleading that:
>
>I will give you a true life example of something that happened.
>
>I saved some of the mail from this discussion (and private mail
>related ones) to a file called warezporn so that I could find it
>again, that being about the most descriptive title I could come up
>with.
>
>I then dcc'd that information to a few fellow EBOAI. Were someone
>monitoring dcc request I could be in serious trouble even though they
>had no idea what was actually in the file.
I do not understand what you are telling me with this last statement. My net
knowledge is too limited to comprehend. Could you pls explain your acronyms
at a minimum?
>
>Other problems.
>1) if they ask me for the file, that's entrapment
If you have to generate it, yes. If was already possess it, then I don't
think it is so clear cut. (I'm guessing here as I am not clear on your
premise.)
>2) if they receive the file without proper prior legal permission,
>they are breaking a law as much as anyone else who receives illegal
>material.
>3) if they don't receive the file but guess based on the name or what
>channel I'm on (this has been previously stated) then they are
>unjustly persecuting me. Not that they can't do this, but _I_ as the
>persecuted certainly wouldn't be too too happy about it.
I'm confused on your premise, who's they?
>
>> >The fact that private /msg's exist speaks for the intention of private
>> >conversation. No-one ever said that a /msg was secure; for instance, a
>> cracked
>> >ircd would let an oper see everything that came through his server if he
>> >chose. OTOH, it is rather obviously intended to be a forum for private
>> >conversations. It's like a telephone. Obviously, illegal activities
through
>> >the phone line should be punished if found out about. However, are you
going
>> >to put a tap on _everone's_ line to find these criminals?
>> >
>> I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact
phase
>> is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
>
>Private messages ARE the contact phase.
In this case I was not talking in a techical sense. Contact has to be formed
somehow. Over the phoneline all is private. On the IRC I'm inclined to think
that some initial contacts are made in the 'open'. If I see a msg or question
printed to the community (me and everyone else on the line at the time) then I
don't see how this can make the 'reasonable expectance of privacy' test and is
therefore not priviledged.
>
>In the event of DCC the intial handshake is sent through the server
>via private messages with control characters in them. Once the
>connection is established, however, the servers drop out of the
>communication loop (therefore in spite of all claims, files are NOT
>being sent through IRC servers and therefore you can make a case for
>them not being sent through IRC at all, (for example: two people meet
>in a hotel lobby and and one says to the other "lets ditch this hotel
>and go put this guy in his coffin" is the hotel management who wasn't
>anywhere near the conversation responsible for the subsequent murder
>if in fact they mean murder and not that they have to go be
>pallbearers at a funeral?)
>
>If the discussion is entirely by private message, there is no intial
>handshake beyond the server connection. Please clarify what you're
>looking for.
>
per above
>> How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
>
>I don't understand this question. Big channels handle literally
>screens of stuff per second. The servers handle as much as 2.5MB on
>netsplit rejoins.
People state it impossible but I am not aware of how messages are handled or
how much 'real estate' each IRCop or Admin is responsible for. I don't have a
grasp of the size of the problem - trying to get more info.
>
>> messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected?
What
>
>The servers pass the message along until it reaches everyone it's
>supposed to or until they vanish because of a problem reaching the
>recipient (ie:netsplit).
>
>> are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
>
>Currently there aren't any. governments have been known to enlist the
Your first statement bothers me. Why do we have procedures for Net abuse but
not for illegal activity. That apparent 'hole' is what has captured my
attention. Penny wise and Pound foolish.
>help of IRCers to proof cases against a suspect by asking them to record
>all correspondance with the suspect, but these are by and large
>individual and well targetted operations.
Is there a way for IRCers to help?
>
>Server admins and server operators CAN BE PROSECUTED for receiving
>illegal materials even if they claim there were doing it as a "clean
>up" measure. Because they are not empowered officals of their
>government (unless individuals know differently) they can not legally
>attempt to prosecute distributers of illegal materials. They can ban
>and K:line but again, how do you prove it without breaking the law?
>
>> Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
>> enforcement?
>
>As has been pointed out. If I join a channel #Warezd it will come up
>in a keyword for #warez however it might be merely a discussion of how
>to eliminate warez from you computer or combat it on the net.
>
All ideas are subject to improvement, including my own. Have found in the
past responses/ideas are easier to discuss once you've thrown something out
for people to chew on. Realize that while it may not be doable am hoping
someone could suggest something better.
>-m
>who doesn't believe that religion has anything to do with it.
>****************************************************************************
>M.D. Yesowitch yeso...@rocza.kei.com
>All Flames to: women-not-to-...@kei.com
>http://www.kei.com/homepages/yesowitc/
>
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Salt
Jeremy Nelson
In article <4vs74t$o...@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, Salt <mric...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>1) Quit saying it someone else's problem. This medium is 'mine' as much as
>any roadway. When your on the highway and you notice a 'Harvey Wallbanger'
>what do you do? Before the days of CB or Cellphone there wasn't much, usually
>get out of the way. However with this technology (CB/Cellphone) we can report
>to law officials and hopefully have the danger removed prior to someone
>getting hurt.
But are you suggesting that if you do see someone who is drunk and driving,
and you DONT inform the police, that you are criminally negligent and as
guilty as the other person of DUI?
Are you suggesting that if anyone, anywhere, is pulled over for DUI, that
you _yourself_ are criminally negligent for DUI because you did not report
the person, even though you dont know the person, didnt see the person,
and never came within 200 miles of them? But mind you, you WERE on the same
"network" of roads that person was on.
Simply being on the same "network" as someone who is dealing in illegal
materials does not make one criminally negligent. A DCC SEND packet
does not have to traverse the network. If both peers are on the same
server, in fact, the message does not cross any server but the server
they are both connected to. Are administrators of other servers criminally
negligent for users who transmit child pornography even if the handshake
never crosses their server's path?
If they are, then you yourself are guily of DUI using the same argument.
If they arent, then its impossible to establish a precise and 100%
conclusively accurate path-of-transmit.
Remember, irc servers only recieve messages from one peer and send it to
another. They know what server it originated from, what peer gave it to
them, and they know what peer they gave it do, and they know what server
it is bound for. But the path is not "logged", so short of taking a snapshot
of the state of the network at the *preceise moment* a privmsg is sent,
a privmsg which may or may not be recieved, due to the dynamic nature of
irc routing, it is absolutely impossible to determine exactly which servers
touched the privmsg on its route, except that you know the two servers at
either end.
So who do you prosecute? If i type the following message:
/quote privmsg salt :^ADCC SEND kiddieporn.gif xxxxxxxx 1045^A
Does this make me a child molestor? Does this make YOU a child molestor?
We say it isnt the problem of irc because it *isnt* the problem of irc.
If you want to go witchhunt someone, go witchhunt MCI or Sprint. Theyre
the ones that actually transmit the message. IRC has nothing to do with
the actual file transfer. IRC has no knowledge of the file transfer.
IRC couldnt get any details if it wanted to.
>If we are willing to strike at net abusers why not the kiddie porn?
Because it is possible to quantify the amount of network abuse based on
the number of connections or the quantity of data transmitted. Any
assessment of whether a person is transmitting kiddie porn is subjective,
and therefore not subject to quantification. This isnt *that* hard to
understand. Open up your mind, dont be so bigoted about your incorrect
predispositions.
>The tools won't be the same nor the corresponding actions. I don't
>want these people off the net I want them incarcerated (sp?) or under a
>doctors care (which ever works).
Attacking irc servers is not the proper place to do this. Attack the
service providers, or attack the larger network. But irc is simply
a straw man to bash for all those who have such feeble arguments that
they are incapable of dealing with the complexity of the reality of
the larger problem.
>2) Let's use the NetHead intelligence thats available out there in cyberspace
>and try to find a solution. The alternative is to ignore (to me a receipe for
>real trouble) or wait for the gov't to do something about it. My experience
>with that has been you never bump your problems up unless your ready for the
>solutions they may provide.
But you keep on throwing out the totaly false and preposterous statement
that even if we were not to ignore the problem that we could do anything
about it. Try to get this into your thick head:
EVEN IF WE KNEW WHO THEY WERE WE COULDNT STOP THEM.
IRC IS NOT THE PLACE TO STOP THIS ACTIVITY.
>I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact phase
>is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
A PRIVMSG is not the sole means of transmission, only the most common.
A script has already been written that will transmit a binary file and
not use any traditional DCC methods. It doesnt even use CTCP.
The file is not transmitted over the servers. The actual message encoding
can be changed as easily as editing the script. IRC fails to have the
capacity or capability to stop anyone from sending files to someone they
can see over irc. Therefore, it is pointless to attempt to try.
>What I am advocating is let's attack the kiddie porn issue with the same verve
>that we reserve for net abusers and not walk away from it. That is all I have
>ever advocated.
IRC is not the place to attack kiddie porn. Attack MCI, Sprint, and the
individual ISPs. IRC has nothing to do with the actual transmission of
the file, and any attempt to conjecture what might be sent (or might not
be sent) based upon a totaly arbitrarily encoded message sent over a common
carrier is bound to fail due to plausable deniability.
>Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
>good ideas or be they bad. That's the reason for this discussion (to me) is
>to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
>it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
>time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
>this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
>its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
>discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the argument.
> If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
>with.
Simply because you are too feeble-minded to accept the reality that it
cannot be dont does not invalidate the fact that it cannot, in fact, be done.
Open up your mind. Learn about irc. Dont just bash the straw man.
>How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
>messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected? What
>are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
>Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
>enforcement?
Typically several hundred K per hour for a large channel. The messages
are routed dynamically based upon the current configuration of the
server map, which can change at any time. IRC is not responsible for the
activities of its connections any more than Wal-Mart is responsible for the
activities of its customers. If i shoot someone in the Wal-Mart parking
lot, is Wal_mart criminally negligent for not taking preventive measures
to ensure that the criminal activitiy never tok place? How much more
than is an irc server operator responsible for content which never crosses
his/her server?
And that "key phrases" crap is just a masking for "speech codes".
>This is not a 'magic wand' issue, where we can wave the wand and the problem
>is magically solved. I happily accept any suggestions to improve the
>situation and reject the attitude that nothing can be done.
Than you are simple-minded and need to learn more about reality. Your out
of hand rejection that irc servers couldnt do anythign if they wanted to
only demonstrates your abject lack of knowledge about the subject under
discussion. This does not bode well for your reputation.
>This is my
>neighborhood too. If I don't want someone to endanger myself and my neighbors
>then I have to be willing to speak/act to do something about it. To me the
>standard has be planted and the battle joined now it's a matter of which side
>are you on and how we fight.
Will you agree to be criminally negligent for any crime that takes place
in your neighborhood, even if you are out of town for the weekend?
Didnt think so.
-hop
Tony Miller
cw...@eskimo.com (Charles W. Johnson) wrote:
>>Right. Vigilantes like PSB patrolling the channels. Just what I'd
>>like to see. Chatting with people wondering if every word I say were
>>being monitored. Doesn't sound like much fun to me. Does it sound
>>like fun to you?
>>And how about the user with a grudge? I don't like you, so I turn you
>>in to the witch hunters. You'd be forced to prove your innocence
>>while they were pounding in the stake and piling up the wood.
>Indeed. As an #atheism operator and an open democratic socialist, I
>really must say I feel _personally_ threatened by the proposal that
>civilians would be given the right to zap me because of my unfashionable
>ism's. Although I must say that people like Kev (a _very_ Xian Undernet IRCop
>don't allow their beliefs to cloud their judgement as to what should be
>addressed by IRCops and what shouldn't, the prospect that hypochristians like
>RevWhite would be given the authority to institute a de facto reign of terror
>against whoever they disagree with is scary to me.
And as an unapologetic conservitive Libertarian, let me shake your
hand. It frightens me that people want to suspend the civil liberties
of innocent people for the express purpose of finding the guilty.
As Franklin said: (and I paraphrase) "He would sacrifice Liberty for
security deserves neither". As a *Christ*ian (:-) ), I support your
right to espouse any philosophy you wish as long as you don't trample
on the civil liberties of another.
(But even that gets suspended on IRC. You have the right to eject me
from your channel because you don't like my nick :-) )
--
DALnet, the BEST IRC network on the face of the planet
Kaehno
On 26 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
: I am not an IRCop or IRCanything. To me that is part of the point of this
: dicussion. What can't be done has been well rehersed by this time. I am not
Well, then suggest perhaps a better way of doing it rather than
prattling on about a moot point. We keep punching holes through your
argument because if we don't, no one will. Sweeping and unethical
changes to people's rights and lifestyles would be affected if left
unchecked. This is not tolerable.
: 1) Quit saying it someone else's problem. This medium is 'mine' as much as
I don't believe that anyone said it was "someone elses's problem".
Simply by refusing to take action that would infringe on the rights of
others is not an affectation to swaying the blame to someone else.
: any roadway. When your on the highway and you notice a 'Harvey Wallbanger'
: what do you do? Before the days of CB or Cellphone there wasn't much, usually
: get out of the way. However with this technology (CB/Cellphone) we can report
: to law officials and hopefully have the danger removed prior to someone
Pray, exactly how do you intend to make this into an invention that
would work? I'd love to see your ideas on that one.
: getting hurt. If we are willing to strike at net abusers why not the kiddie
: porn? The tools won't be the same nor the corresponding actions. I don't
As I have told you before, you can not reliably determine who the
culprit is. So, if user John Doe (goo...@duh.com) allows Jane Doe to
use his account and she's found soliciting material such as this, and
the account shows that John Doe owns the account, how are you to say
that it is he that sits at that computer? Answer: There is none.
Simple, I work at an Internet provider and there's simply no way for
even this company to verify the occupant of the chair sitting behind the
keyboard and the account. Passwords are fine and dandy assuming that
the account hasn't been hacked or even used by other people in the
house. Shall we lock them all up because of association or lock them up
because someone hacked their account and did this?
: want these people off the net I want them incarcerated (sp?) or under a
: doctors care (which ever works).
When you can provide a reliable method that: verifies that the user you
think is causing the problem is really the one that owns the account or
can verify the true identity of said individual and can provide proof
that said individual is guilty of said crimes, I'll listen. Otherwise,
stop wasting my time and bandwidth. You're continuing on a point that
is moot.
: 2) Let's use the NetHead intelligence thats available out there in cyberspace
: and try to find a solution. The alternative is to ignore (to me a receipe for
: real trouble) or wait for the gov't to do something about it. My experience
: with that has been you never bump your problems up unless your ready for the
: solutions they may provide.
Offer one or step out of the ring.
: I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact phase
: is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
Not really. If I understand ircd (in theory and from what I've seen in
ircd) (correct me if I'm wrong, server admins), it only compares the
first argument and assigns it as the intended recipient - by nickname
only. There's really not much you can do other than to send it by nick
only. It doesn't do an address lookup. If it did, that would take up
so much CPU time and cause too much load for IRC to ever be feasible.
: What I am advocating is let's attack the kiddie porn issue with the same verve
: that we reserve for net abusers and not walk away from it. That is all I have
: ever advocated.
Read above about verifying the user and his crimes before you suggest
this. It's not feasible to do this. The only way to attack net users
is through his or her connection to the net. When he/she abuses it on
the USENet, that's when we can do something about it. Targetting an
abstract concept (group), there's no definite object. There's not an
individual or group of them to identify. So, pray tell me, are we
supposed to just 'read' their minds and determine whether or not they
are kiddie porn offenders? I rather warrant not. You can't do
something against a concept or idea unless you have something far more
concrete than that... stop wasting our time.
: Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
: good ideas or be they bad. That's the reason for this discussion (to me) is
: to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
: it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
No, there are no 'alternatives' because the very point we've been trying
to make is that it's next to impossible to do something as you suggest.
When there is an alternative, it will be suggested. At such time, as
even in this case, it will be tested for feasibility by talking to
people.
: time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
It can't be done - with current methods. I'm sorry you can't accept
that reality. There are too many countries involved to put a stop to
what is clearly an international ring of problems. You keep applying
International standards to an entity that is clearly not definable in
that respect.
: this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
: its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
: discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the argument.
The methods you are proposing - if used in America - _Would_ be in
violation of a person's first ammendment rights. Sorry if that's a fact
that escapes your realm of comprehension. However, you can not usurp
other's rights to have your own.
: If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
: with.
The porn itself is _not_ illegal. What is _illegal_ in the US is the
actual distribution and creation of said porn. Just as it's not illegal
- in the US - for a child to drink, but it is illegal for them to be
sold or possess alcohol.
: How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
: messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected? What
The question isn't how much traffic does 'a' channel handle, but rather
thousands of them... in fact almost 5000+ (on the EFNet). Msgs are
handled by nickname - regardless of whether said person is on the net or
not. As for what happens if/when illegal activity is suspected is
entirely up to the person who suspects the activity is occuring.
: are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
IRCAdmins and ops can only k-line the users and/or contact their ISPs.
That's just about it.
: Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
: enforcement?
No. That would require user's private conversations to be monitorred
and that's something that users nor admins have the time or resources
for. Nor would 99.999975% of them want to. You don't seem to
comprehend that people don't want their conversations to be monitorred
regardless of whether or not they are engaged in illegal activity. I
sure as hell don't and can't think of a single person of that I know
that would. You try sifting through 'terrabytes' of information a
day... oh sure, have fun.
: This is not a 'magic wand' issue, where we can wave the wand and the problem
: is magically solved. I happily accept any suggestions to improve the
: situation and reject the attitude that nothing can be done. This is my
: neighborhood too. If I don't want someone to endanger myself and my neighbors
: then I have to be willing to speak/act to do something about it. To me the
: standard has be planted and the battle joined now it's a matter of which side
: are you on and how we fight.
Keep dreaming. Maybe you'll find the dream you are looking for. If you
have such problems with an animal that can not and will not be tamed by
the likes of you, get off of the net. It's a dangerous place and it's
not nice. Perhaps it would just be simpler if you turned off your
computer and walked away. Nothing is stopping you from doing so.
----
Kaehno
On 26 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
: >world revolves around the U.S.A and it's standards...
: I believe there is right and wrong, and this is wrong. My country of origin
: is irrelvant.
Right and wrong. Right: The first statement. Wrong: Second statement.
Why? Simple: What's right in one country may be entirely wrong or
unethical in another country. Just because you wish a fact to be so
does not make it.
: Is that my only alternative - to play the part of the Lone Ranger? If one has
: no choice so be it. That being the case, then don't complain of my methods or
: tactics to accomplish my goal.
OH Hell NO. You're starting to sound like Adolf Hilter already. Don't
complain of my methods or tactics??? Oh get over yourself. As an
example: A police officer kills a criminal to stop a crime - in cold
blood. Does this stop the crime? Yes. Is it legal? No. Is it moral
or ethical? No. Is it something we should allow? No. Will it stop
future criminals or even deter them? No. Will it cause more problems
than it started? Definitely. I'd sooner lock you up for attempting to
contain the world to meet your own selfish needs. We don't need your
kind here.
: Is this the 'community' you want? I've seen the Internet described as many
: things but not 'perfect'.
Yes, this is the community I want. Justice has a way of finding those
that need it on the Internet. Revenge is blasted and berated, much as
you seem to be for suggesting such insipid tactics and claiming that you
should take no responsibility in it. Bah!
: I agree with your philosophy. I got started on this thread due to critism of
: PSB actions against perceived child molesters. While I can't say I endorse
PSB was just muttering to hear the rocks in his head rattle. He didn't
have a point and was simply doing it in retaliation for getting k-lined
after he took over a channel. Don't use a clearly doltish fool to
support your tactics, for it shall certainly be your undoing. When you
use him as a reference, you clearly don't make yourself more reputable..
that's for sure.
: his actions at least he was taking some. He was widely condemmed/threatened
Um.. wait, where was he taking action? Oh, let me remember... oh THAT's
right, he was posting accusations and unfounded garbage to a newsgroup.
Now _THAT_ is taking action. Bullshit. I don't buy it. If you have a
point to make, make it. Otherwise posting to a moot subject or a point
is ultimately futile and wastes bandwidth.
: and harrassed. This to me is the wrong argument. The people that are willing
: to fight these battles need help. They should be provided the most effective
You don't fight battles by using evidence that does not exist or is
fabricated. So, you condone #!!!!!!!niggers and RevWhite too eh?
Maybe dumbell@lightlink could use your service too. S/h/it (Copyright
by Crackbaby 1996) could use your help too. S/h/it seems to believe
that the world needs to be cleansed too.
: tools available. They shouldn't be told don't fight, just acquiess. More
: action is required but action that helps the cause not hurt it.
Read my previous post and this one. Then consider this statement again.
Tommy Galia
> As Franklin said: (and I paraphrase) "He would sacrifice Liberty for
> security deserves neither". As a *Christ*ian (:-) ), I support your
> right to espouse any philosophy you wish as long as you don't trample
> on the civil liberties of another.
better. The whole thing goes. "Those who desire to give up Freedom in
order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
witch in this case could be ment to say those who desire to give up
freedom in order to controll child porn will not get nor do they deserve
either one.
And why should undernet go out of their way to give psb what they want.
sure i've said it 50 times and i'll say it again i don't belive that
child porn is right but what's next. what are people going to be willing
to do to shut these religous fanatics up. Making it against undernet
rules to have channels that discuss satanisum or athesim. ok then what
sex and drugs. ok now lets see we don't agree with this athesist
software so no more software channels. ok now the hackers channels.
untill you idiots have given them evreything they bitch about. now
undernet has become purely cristian network. anyone caught discussing or
belived to be discussing anything but religon will be g-lined. come on
is this what you want. an undernet where you can't talk about anything
but religon. and now that they've cleaned up undernet it's time for the
whole internet. then the whole world. ya sure this is extreem but what
do you think is going to happen they're going to stop just at child porn
i don't think so.
CrackBaby
On Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:08:32 -0700, Kaehno <ico...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> The 'act' of child porn in itself is NOT a dangerous thing.
> It's how we react to it that makes it dangerous.
Perhaps I'm confused as to what you mean by the 'act' of child
porn, but are you saying that forcing a child to perform sexual acts in
order to take pictures and distribute them across the world isn't dangerous
to the child?
CrackBaby
caro...@uoknor.edu
All E-mail gladly received. Offensive reply ASAP.
Salt
Based on considerations for wrongful 'snipping' and potentially taking things
out of context no snipping has been done.
In article <4vss56$n...@news.inc.net>, nel...@cs.uwp.edu says...
>
>In article <4vs74t$o...@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, Salt <mric...@hiwaay.net>
wrote:
>>1) Quit saying it someone else's problem. This medium is 'mine' as much as
>>any roadway. When your on the highway and you notice a 'Harvey Wallbanger'
>>what do you do? Before the days of CB or Cellphone there wasn't much,
usually
>>get out of the way. However with this technology (CB/Cellphone) we can
report
>>to law officials and hopefully have the danger removed prior to someone
>>getting hurt.
>
>But are you suggesting that if you do see someone who is drunk and driving,
>and you DONT inform the police, that you are criminally negligent and as
>guilty as the other person of DUI?
>
>Are you suggesting that if anyone, anywhere, is pulled over for DUI, that
>you _yourself_ are criminally negligent for DUI because you did not report
>the person, even though you dont know the person, didnt see the person,
>and never came within 200 miles of them? But mind you, you WERE on the same
>"network" of roads that person was on.
I can only be responsible when I have knowledge. If I be ignorant then I
can't be held responsible (caveat 'ingnorance of the law being no excuse').
No problem with your statement.
>
>Simply being on the same "network" as someone who is dealing in illegal
>materials does not make one criminally negligent. A DCC SEND packet
>does not have to traverse the network. If both peers are on the same
>server, in fact, the message does not cross any server but the server
>they are both connected to. Are administrators of other servers criminally
>negligent for users who transmit child pornography even if the handshake
>never crosses their server's path?
No. If you have no knowledge you cannot act or be held responsible. However,
do we have to remain ignorant? This is where my ignorance of IRC limits me.
>
>If they are, then you yourself are guily of DUI using the same argument.
>If they arent, then its impossible to establish a precise and 100%
>conclusively accurate path-of-transmit.
>
>Remember, irc servers only recieve messages from one peer and send it to
>another. They know what server it originated from, what peer gave it to
>them, and they know what peer they gave it do, and they know what server
>it is bound for. But the path is not "logged", so short of taking a snapshot
>of the state of the network at the *preceise moment* a privmsg is sent,
>a privmsg which may or may not be recieved, due to the dynamic nature of
>irc routing, it is absolutely impossible to determine exactly which servers
>touched the privmsg on its route, except that you know the two servers at
>either end.
>
>So who do you prosecute? If i type the following message:
>
>/quote privmsg salt :^ADCC SEND kiddieporn.gif xxxxxxxx 1045^A
>
>Does this make me a child molestor? Does this make YOU a child molestor?
I can perceive no way to 'crack' the private msg interface. I don't see
why/what action is to be taken when a 'public' message is offered. If I see
traffic that I suspect is illegal there should be an accepted procedure for
reporting it with confidence that action will be taken. Only in the last day
or so has an avenue been offered and even that is unofficial.
I would like to go after the private msgs as much as I would like to elect an
honest politician. Its possible just not probable.
>
>
>We say it isnt the problem of irc because it *isnt* the problem of irc.
>If you want to go witchhunt someone, go witchhunt MCI or Sprint. Theyre
>the ones that actually transmit the message. IRC has nothing to do with
>the actual file transfer. IRC has no knowledge of the file transfer.
>IRC couldnt get any details if it wanted to.
>
>
Again my ingnorance of the IRC doesn't allow me at this time to make any kind
of informed guestimate of it's capabilities for monitoring. Appreciate the
info provided.
>>If we are willing to strike at net abusers why not the kiddie porn?
>
>Because it is possible to quantify the amount of network abuse based on
>the number of connections or the quantity of data transmitted. Any
>assessment of whether a person is transmitting kiddie porn is subjective,
>and therefore not subject to quantification. This isnt *that* hard to
>understand. Open up your mind, dont be so bigoted about your incorrect
>predispositions.
>
>
You say you can't and I ask why and I'm the bigot? This may be a repetitive
argument for you. So be it. All I have seen to date (with one exception) is
we can't so don't ask. Excuse me but who made you God? (I know I wasn't asked
and don't expect me to send you my tithing.)
>>The tools won't be the same nor the corresponding actions. I don't
>>want these people off the net I want them incarcerated (sp?) or under a
>>doctors care (which ever works).
>
>Attacking irc servers is not the proper place to do this. Attack the
>service providers, or attack the larger network. But irc is simply
>a straw man to bash for all those who have such feeble arguments that
>they are incapable of dealing with the complexity of the reality of
>the larger problem.
I wasn't aware that asking why something couldn't be done was attacking
someone. I think I have been consistent in my posts on this. I have never
have intimated that a simple or 5-minute solution existed. I have offered my
proposed actions per request with no assumption as to their finality. The
proposals were said to be unworkable with no explanation. Stick to the point.
You want to tell me my solution is unworkable then tell me why. If you don't
have the time for the why then please forgive me if I reject your arguement as
so much ballyhoo. Kids have to take that, adults don't.
>
>
>>2) Let's use the NetHead intelligence thats available out there in
cyberspace
>>and try to find a solution. The alternative is to ignore (to me a receipe
for
>>real trouble) or wait for the gov't to do something about it. My experience
>>with that has been you never bump your problems up unless your ready for the
>>solutions they may provide.
>
>But you keep on throwing out the totaly false and preposterous statement
>that even if we were not to ignore the problem that we could do anything
>about it. Try to get this into your thick head:
>
> EVEN IF WE KNEW WHO THEY WERE WE COULDNT STOP THEM.
> IRC IS NOT THE PLACE TO STOP THIS ACTIVITY.
Another sweeping statement with no information to back it up.
I prefer to think of myself as persistent vs thick-headed but the result is
the same.
I contend if you 'do' know (counter to your argument at the first of this
post) then there is action you must take, morally if not legally. There
should be an accepted procedure to follow in these cases. The procedure
should provide confidence to the reporter the it won't be ignored and the
potential offender that he will only be inconvenienced to the limit of
'probable cause'.
>
>
>>I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact phase
>>is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
>
>A PRIVMSG is not the sole means of transmission, only the most common.
>A script has already been written that will transmit a binary file and
>not use any traditional DCC methods. It doesnt even use CTCP.
>The file is not transmitted over the servers. The actual message encoding
>can be changed as easily as editing the script. IRC fails to have the
>capacity or capability to stop anyone from sending files to someone they
>can see over irc. Therefore, it is pointless to attempt to try.
>
>
How do you know 'kidde porn' exists on the IRC? If all msgs are private then
this phenomeon (sp?) would be unknown to us, right? Why do we have confidence
that this is taking place - because someone says it is or because people are
seeing evidence on the IRC. For the former no action can be taken for the
latter action can. I don't 'see' Sprint/MCI so I have left them out of the
issue.
>>What I am advocating is let's attack the kiddie porn issue with the same
verve
>>that we reserve for net abusers and not walk away from it. That is all I
have
>>ever advocated.
>
>IRC is not the place to attack kiddie porn. Attack MCI, Sprint, and the
>individual ISPs. IRC has nothing to do with the actual transmission of
>the file, and any attempt to conjecture what might be sent (or might not
>be sent) based upon a totaly arbitrarily encoded message sent over a common
>carrier is bound to fail due to plausable deniability.
If the IRC is where it is visible then I disagree. As for 'plausable
deniability' - I will not argue, I just don't know enough and will yield your
point.
>
>
>>Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
>>good ideas or be they bad. That's the reason for this discussion (to me) is
>>to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
>>it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
>>time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
>>this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
>>its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
>>discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the
argument.
>> If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
>>with.
>
>Simply because you are too feeble-minded to accept the reality that it
>cannot be dont does not invalidate the fact that it cannot, in fact, be done.
>
>Open up your mind. Learn about irc. Dont just bash the straw man.
Another can't be done 'cause it can't be done. I'm sorry Mr IRCman just
because you've waved your wand I'm not impressed. I would really appreciate
reason.
I thought that was what I was doing, 'learning about irc'. I submit mine is
not the 'closed' mind in this dialoge.
>
>
>>How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
>>messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected? What
>>are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
>>Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
>>enforcement?
>
>Typically several hundred K per hour for a large channel. The messages
>are routed dynamically based upon the current configuration of the
>server map, which can change at any time.
Thanks, finally some info. I think blood from a turnip would've been easier.
>IRC is not responsible for the
>activities of its connections any more than Wal-Mart is responsible for the
>activities of its customers. If i shoot someone in the Wal-Mart parking
>lot, is Wal_mart criminally negligent for not taking preventive measures
>to ensure that the criminal activitiy never tok place? How much more
>than is an irc server operator responsible for content which never crosses
>his/her server?
The preceding was a paid political annoucement.
>
>And that "key phrases" crap is just a masking for "speech codes".
Guilty. My question is, could it be done? Implied is also should it be done?
These questions only apply to those messages in the 'public' arena. The
first, is possibly too resource intensive to perform at this time (don't know
the size of the 'public' arena). The second, as long as it is confined to the
'public' arena I believe is a valid subject for consideration.
>
>
>>This is not a 'magic wand' issue, where we can wave the wand and the problem
>>is magically solved. I happily accept any suggestions to improve the
>>situation and reject the attitude that nothing can be done.
>
>Than you are simple-minded and need to learn more about reality. Your out
>of hand rejection that irc servers couldnt do anythign if they wanted to
>only demonstrates your abject lack of knowledge about the subject under
>discussion. This does not bode well for your reputation.
I have rejected flat statements. I have asked why. If my reputation suffers
then I will accept. I know no other way. To a lack of knowledge, I confess,
guilty as charged. I never thought of ignorance as a crime -- only if one
tried to maintain it. If you can suggest a better way to alleviate it, I'm
listening.
Based on the posts to this point either I have failed to communicate these
points adequately or you have failed to try to understand them. On the
former, my apologies if I haven't been clear, on the later I can offer no
assistance.
>
>
>>This is my
>>neighborhood too. If I don't want someone to endanger myself and my
neighbors
>>then I have to be willing to speak/act to do something about it. To me the
>>standard has be planted and the battle joined now it's a matter of which
side
>>are you on and how we fight.
>
>Will you agree to be criminally negligent for any crime that takes place
>in your neighborhood, even if you are out of town for the weekend?
>
>Didnt think so.
>
>-hop
Why do I get the feeling that if there are problems in your neighborhood you
can be counted on to stay on the sidelines.
As I continue on my learning curve, all helpful comments are appreciated.
Salt
Keith D. Tyler
: Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
: to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
: it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
: time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
: this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
: its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
: discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the argument.
: If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
: with.
Part of the problem is that there is no universal human definition of what
is right and wrong. Some material which is legal in other countries is not
legal here. It is similar to the fact that it is not legal for me to drink
in the state of Massachusetts. But it is not so far a drive to Montreal,
where the drinking age is 3 years lower. Is it therefore wrong for me to
drink in Mass, but _not_ wrong for me to drink in Montreal? Or Louisiana?
Is it wrong for a 17 year old to have sex with a 15 year old in Mass,
where the statutory age is 16, but _not_ wrong if they have sex in
Georgia, where the statutory age is 14?
And is it therefore okay to tell those with lower or stricter limits that
theirs are wrong? There is probably a country which raises the statutory
age or definitive age of 'kiddieporn' above what many of us would
reccomend. So therefore, should we instead go with the majority rule as to
what is legal/illegal limits? In which case, I believe the drinking age is
18 in most countries (hey, im all for that one :) ). Or should we just
screw everyone elses opinion and pick our limits from random places?
Tenebreux
In article <4vuu63$f...@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>, mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt)
again showed us American tax dollars at play by stating:
> In article <4vss56$n...@news.inc.net>, nel...@cs.uwp.edu says...
> >Salt <mric...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> >Simply being on the same "network" as someone who is dealing in illegal
> >materials does not make one criminally negligent. A DCC SEND packet
> >does not have to traverse the network. If both peers are on the same
> >server, in fact, the message does not cross any server but the server
> >they are both connected to. Are administrators of other servers criminally
> >negligent for users who transmit child pornography even if the handshake
> >never crosses their server's path?
>
> No. If you have no knowledge you cannot act or be held responsible.
However,
> do we have to remain ignorant? This is where my ignorance of IRC limits me.
To translate this: "I grant that we have no knowledge of private
transactions. I would suggest, however, that we embrace fascism and
ATTEMPT to track every private transaction."
> I can perceive no way to 'crack' the private msg interface. I don't see
> why/what action is to be taken when a 'public' message is offered. If I see
> traffic that I suspect is illegal there should be an accepted procedure for
> reporting it with confidence that action will be taken. Only in the last day
> or so has an avenue been offered and even that is unofficial.
>
> I would like to go after the private msgs as much as I would like to elect an
> honest politician. Its possible just not probable.
Again, to translate: "I'm not content with playing thought police with what
I see in public forums. I feel it is my duty to also monitor and control
all private conversations between people."
Mr. Richter, here's a little joke for you:
Q: What's the best thing about a 12 year old girl?
A: Shaving her so she looks eight.
Ostensibly child porn, yes? Would you be willing to believe that this joke
is common on a channel I frequent? You probably would. Would you be
willing to believe that this joke IN NO WAY reflects the true thoughts and
beliefs of ANY resident of the channel? That it is, in fact, a simple
joke, designed to perhaps amuse and perhaps offend? I didn't think so.
> >Because it is possible to quantify the amount of network abuse based on
> >the number of connections or the quantity of data transmitted. Any
> >assessment of whether a person is transmitting kiddie porn is subjective,
> >and therefore not subject to quantification. This isnt *that* hard to
> >understand. Open up your mind, dont be so bigoted about your incorrect
> >predispositions.
>
> You say you can't and I ask why and I'm the bigot? This may be a repetitive
> argument for you. So be it. All I have seen to date (with one exception) is
> we can't so don't ask. Excuse me but who made you God? (I know I wasn't
asked
> and don't expect me to send you my tithing.)
Untrue. Many people have told you (repeatedly, I might add) that IRC spans
countries with different laws and legal systems than ours, so that any of
your fascistic desires to monitor all transactions, public and private, are
impossible in the same way that it is impossible to control Usenet. Many
also have told you that the sheer amount of data being transmitted to make
IRC viable and real-time makes the idea of monitoring said data utterly
unreasonable.
> You want to tell me my solution is unworkable then tell me why. If you don't
> have the time for the why then please forgive me if I reject your
arguement as
> so much ballyhoo. Kids have to take that, adults don't.
It's amazing that somebody so dense could work for NASA. Or perhaps, given
the incident with the O-rings, maybe it isn't. Once again, for the man in
the back with the glazed eyes. Your suggestions are unworkable as IRC
spans multiple countries, not just the United States. Your suggestions are
illegal *in* the United States as they require an invasion of privacy that
even a three-year-old could recognize. Your suggestions are unreasonable
as any attempt to monitor traffic would either require a monitoring system
that would bring all IRC servers to a dead halt or full-time monitoring
staff that would have to spend ridiculous amounts of time monitoring the
traffic on their server.
> I contend if you 'do' know (counter to your argument at the first of this
> post) then there is action you must take, morally if not legally. There
> should be an accepted procedure to follow in these cases. The procedure
> should provide confidence to the reporter the it won't be ignored and the
> potential offender that he will only be inconvenienced to the limit of
> 'probable cause'.
That's in place already. US citizens that *can* be proven to be breaking
US laws or ISP AUPs are prosecuted or denied service. ISPs do NOT take
action without probable cause. With the exception of rogue sites, ISPs
*do* respond to reports of abuse or illegal activity.
> >And that "key phrases" crap is just a masking for "speech codes".
>
> Guilty. My question is, could it be done? Implied is also should it be
done?
> These questions only apply to those messages in the 'public' arena. The
> first, is possibly too resource intensive to perform at this time (don't know
> the size of the 'public' arena). The second, as long as it is confined
to the
> 'public' arena I believe is a valid subject for consideration.
Technically? Yes, with the requisite decline in service levels, your
Fourth Reich could be implemented. Legally? Not in this country. Should
it be done? Not if the Constitution has anything to say about it.
Tony Miller
ze...@acadiacom.net (Tenebreux) wrote:
>Here's what you CAN do. Go buy a computer and run it as an independent
>IRC server not connected to any other servers. Crack the ircd so you can
>monitor all traffic. Then advertise your irc server as "safe" because you
>reign with an iron fist.
That's a valid idea, Zeus. There's already a kidnet up which does
that sort of thing, and I plan to register my kids there when I get a
chance.
However, *real* vigilence will have to be taken, because children will
congregate there, and it will attract predators like a playground
does.
Tony Miller
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
<Snip!>
>this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
>its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
>discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the argument.
> If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal to begin
>with.
I have to address this particular point. The first amendment has
nothing to do with kiddie porn. Kiddie porn involves doing something
bad with a child and recording it somehow.
The first amendment has to do with my right to discuss what I wish, be
it God, Satan, the KKK, or the Rotary club.
Currently (and someone more versed in law correct me if I'm wrong)
talking about child porn is not illegal, unless it's a request to give
or receive pictures.
Talking about abusing children is not against the law either. As
dispicable as I find this practice, I'm forced tu uphold the current
rights of those who do it, lest *my* rights are the next to go.
>How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
>messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected? What
>are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
>Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
>enforcement?
It's already been mentioned that software is not the answer here.
Software cannot currently assume intent. If you write a script to
filter out those who blaspheme, it can't tell the difference between a
prayer and a curse.
Besides, do you think once this is implemented that the kiddie porn
traders will stick to the script? "I love Jesus" may mean "I want
kiddie porn"
Tony Miller
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
<Snip!>
>I agree with your philosophy. I got started on this thread due to critism of
>PSB actions against perceived child molesters. While I can't say I endorse
>his actions at least he was taking some. He was widely condemmed/threatened
>and harrassed. This to me is the wrong argument. The people that are willing
>to fight these battles need help. They should be provided the most effective
>tools available. They shouldn't be told don't fight, just acquiess. More
>action is required but action that helps the cause not hurt it.
The ends do not justify the means. PSB seems to me to be a very
irritating individual on IRC. And as such he is the proper target for
IRCops' ire.
If you persist in playing the "lone ranger", and resort to the same
tactics he/she uses, you will find yourself on the receiving end of a
network wide k-line.
You'll be gone, the porn traders (who follow the network rules) will
still be there plying their trade. You will have accomplished nothing
except to add a couple of bytes to some ircd k-line files.
PSB is doing something, sure. But it's ineffective, and irritating.
And I will not "help" someone who is being irritating.
Steve Sobol
yeso...@rocza.kei.com (M. D. Yesowitch) wrote:
>In the event of DCC the intial handshake is sent through the server
>via private messages with control characters in them. Once the
>connection is established, however, the servers drop out of the
>communication loop (therefore in spite of all claims, files are NOT
>being sent through IRC servers and therefore you can make a case for
>them not being sent through IRC at all, (for example: two people meet
They *aren't* sent through IRC at all. She's right.
Let me enlighten you, Mr. Salt, on the DCC protocol. I've written
programs that communicate via DCC and the ONLY, repeat ONLY time an
IRC server is used is when a message is sent, through the servers, via
Client to Client Protocol, saying "Hey! I'm knocking on the door, open
up a connection!" Usually this message specifies one of two things.
DCC Chat indicates that the sending user wants to open up a DCC Chat
session with the receiver.
DCC SEND indicates that the sending user wants to send a file to the
receiver (which can be anything, and an accepted DCC SEND request
isn't proof of a thing.)
Now. If said DCC connection is accepted, this is what happens.
The sender, in sending a request, also sends an IP address and a port,
for example 123.234.56.7 8888 -- and the receiver opens up a "socket"
(communications channel) DIRECTLY TO THE SENDER'S COMPUTER. Contrast
this with a normal message. A normal message sent with /msg, or a
public message on some channel, starts at the sender's computer and is
broadcast to the server the sender is on. That server broadcasts the
message to all the other servers on the net (that's how you get the
hellish lag you find on IRC sometimes... because those servers get
*really* loaded down and sometimes a message has to go through a whole
bunch of them to get to its destination(s).
Have I made this clear? I'll be happy to elaborate if you want me to.
--Steve ["Hopeless"]
Steve Sobol
nel...@cs.uwp.edu (Jeremy Nelson) wrote:
>IRC is not the place to attack kiddie porn. Attack MCI, Sprint, and the
>individual ISPs. IRC has nothing to do with the actual transmission of
>the file, and any attempt to conjecture what might be sent (or might not
>be sent) based upon a totaly arbitrarily encoded message sent over a common
>carrier is bound to fail due to plausable deniability.
You have absolutely got to be kidding.
It is impossible for Internet providers to monitor every byte of
traffic that comes across their networks, and it is an order of
magnitude more impossible for a huge worldwide telecommunications
provider to do the same thing. Your statement is more preposterous
than anything Mr. Richter has said.
Read your own question again, Jeremy, and rethink what you said:
>Will you agree to be criminally negligent for any crime that takes place
>in your neighborhood, even if you are out of town for the weekend?
>Didnt think so.
>-hop
--Steve ("Hopeless")
--
North Shore Technologies/Cleveland, OH personal: http://junior.apk.net/~sjsobol
Web Consulting, PC Sales North Shore Technologies ELECTRIC AVE.:
Custom Win3.1/Win95 Programming http://www.nstc.com
(Speak for North Shore? I *AM* North Shore. :) Both are under construction :)
Steve Sobol
mric...@hiwaay.net (Salt) wrote:
>Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally somebody that has provided reasoning
>with their statements. I feel as if I finally may be leaving the wilderness.
Let me make a couple more points.
1. I had a guy on IRC harassing my girlfriend, and threatening her
with physical harm. Illegal? Most definitely. Many ISP's would
consider my complaint enough to shut down the offender's account. In
the case of the idiot I talked to at this particular ISP, he ignored
me because I hadn't filed police charges. He wouldn't even listen to
me. I thought that was going too far the other way, but the point is
it's up to the ISP to decide what action to take IF..... IF you can
identify the person and file a formal complaint. Identification often
is a problem, as mentioned here, but your mileage may vary.
(BTW, the ISP where the offender had the account claimed common
carrier status, which is complete bull because if a common carrier
like the phone company had reports of telephone harassment, they would
likely at least be willing to help identify the person. I found out
later that the ISP was afraid of the guy because he was a hacker.)
>In this case I was not talking in a techical sense. Contact has to be formed
>somehow. Over the phoneline all is private. On the IRC I'm inclined to think
The phone line... yes, I like to think phone convos are private,
although that may not always be true...
>that some initial contacts are made in the 'open'. If I see a msg or question
>printed to the community (me and everyone else on the line at the time) then I
>don't see how this can make the 'reasonable expectance of privacy' test and is
>therefore not priviledged.
A /msg is indeed more private than a public message to a channel.
>Your first statement bothers me. Why do we have procedures for Net abuse but
>not for illegal activity. That apparent 'hole' is what has captured my
>attention. Penny wise and Pound foolish.
The answer has already been said. For charges to stand up in court,
you need proof. Proof can be very hard to come by. I'll repeat: it's
impossible for you or an ISP to know absolutely, to be 100% sure,
who's at the other keyboard.
>Is there a way for IRCers to help?
I do what I can, but I share others' view that too much monitoring is
going to result in a violation of rights.
macker
PSB <st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>True they can,
>
>By their own admission, they are well organized. They know the channels,
>heck they even know who to op when the child molesters lose their
>channels by simply using UWorld. The lastest irc op to assist and help
>child molesters is ArchDemon. This freak gave child molesters back a
>channel that the christians had taken over and shut down. Oh, well
>perhaps the Undernet motto should be "the official channel of child
>molesters and child pix trading".
Although I don't know if this is true or not, I can't resist a cheap
shot... something i've always said.
IRCop's are never there when you need them, and always there when you
don't want them.
>Another thing, have you ever noticed the number of people in these
>channels, I have been sending horses to them has a disguise of the jpg
>file. A lot of sickos in Undernet. Dalnet had only 2 active channels at
>last check with only 11 people. And when I took over one on the dalnet,
>guess what? the irc ops did not help the child molesters.
Were you counting those +s? Since Dal-Net's new AUP the simplest
solution has been: /mode #warez +s. Heh. Also, by horse I assume you
mean trojan? A quick question... How are you doing this? I.e. an
exe that displays a pic, or just what? I ran across someone in a.c.v
a while back who INSISTED that a computer can be infected with a virus
by viewing a pic (i.e. the pic acts as a carrier...). I know of no
popular format that could do more than raise hell with your viewer and
not be corrected by rebooting.
On a quick note concerning child porn and related IRC chans, child
porn is illegal... regular porn is legal. Porn chans should not allow
child porn (pre-teen) to be traded in their channel. To let my dark
half come out and play briefly... why not infiltrate a child porn
channel pretending to be new to IRC? Simply make full logs, accept
files, and keep in touch with root on their system...
Also i'm sure you could raise hell after infiltrating the channel to
any extent... sending a letter to the person in r.l. with their nick
and advising them they are being monitored would be sure to have
effects... heh.
Just some ideas from my dark half...
-Thaddeus
;) -macker
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my |
| employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely |
| coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is |
| non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the |
| absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. |
| The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for |
| the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, |
| non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.) |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Charles W. Johnson
Thusly spake Salt (mric...@hiwaay.net) unto alt.irc:>>Thusly spake Salt (mric...@hiwaay.net) unto alt.irc:
>I liked that part.
><snip>
>>Nobody is implying that this does not happen. The issue is whether or not
>>it should be _authorized_ action. If you want to give everyone the right
>>to zap what they deem to be unsavory content, why not just start your own net
>>and give everyone an O:line?
>>
><snip>
>>
>>Fine. What _do_ you intend to do about it please? I think we can pretty well
>>establish that pattern-matching on channel names won't work, and that
>>pattern-matching on conversation not only won't work, but will also violate
>>the privacy of everyone who uses the network.
>>
>I am not an IRCop or IRCanything. To me that is part of the point of this
>dicussion. What can't be done has been well rehersed by this time. I am not
>suggesting that users be Klined or Oed or whatever (I do not know the
>vernacular). I am asking/suggesting/pleading that:
>1) Quit saying it someone else's problem. This medium is 'mine' as much as
>any roadway. When your on the highway and you notice a 'Harvey Wallbanger'
>what do you do? Before the days of CB or Cellphone there wasn't much,
>usually
>get out of the way. However with this technology (CB/Cellphone) we can
>report
>to law officials and hopefully have the danger removed prior to someone
>getting hurt. If we are willing to strike at net abusers why not the kiddie
>porn? The tools won't be the same nor the corresponding actions. I don't
>want these people off the net I want them incarcerated (sp?) or under a
>doctors care (which ever works).
All that is very nice, but the nature of the IRC medium makes it nearly
impossible to catch distributers of kiddie porn reliably. Of course, the
IRCops could periodically go in and G: line (globally ban) everyone in, say,
#kidsexpics and #!!!kiddieporn, but obviously, then people would just begin
to congregate in #!!!!!!!!!kidpics. And of course, none of this does anything
to prevent people from communicating by private /msg's without ever joining
any channel of the sort. And, as I said before, the only way to follow the
private conversations would be through a cracked ircd [vernacular for an IRC
server whose code allows an IRCop to "peek in" on any and all traffic that
goes through his server, including private messages], which would be roughly
equivalent to placing a wiretap on everybody's phone to catch a couple drug
delears.
>2) Let's use the NetHead intelligence thats available out there in cyberspace
>and try to find a solution. The alternative is to ignore (to me a receipe
>for
>real trouble) or wait for the gov't to do something about it. My experience
>with that has been you never bump your problems up unless your ready for the
>solutions they may provide.
And as I've said over and over, there simply _is no way_ to reliably stop
these traders. At best, you'd get a hundred or two, before everyone adopted
a different methodology for sending the pictures. Right now, most join
a channel and discuss a little, mainly in re: of "send me such-and-such."
If IRCops or law-enforcement officers routinely raided the regular channels,
they'd simply find new and different ways around it, such as using eggdrop
"party-line" bots or communicating by private /msg.
>>The fact that private /msg's exist speaks for the intention of private
>>conversation. No-one ever said that a /msg was secure; for instance, a
>cracked
>>ircd would let an oper see everything that came through his server if he
>>chose. OTOH, it is rather obviously intended to be a forum for private
>>conversations. It's like a telephone. Obviously, illegal activities through
>>the phone line should be punished if found out about. However, are you going
>>to put a tap on _everone's_ line to find these criminals?
>I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact phase
>is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
Private /msg's are sent to different users by a client sending a command
to the server. The command, in raw IRC form, is as follows:
PRIVMSG target :stuff
Where target is either the individual user (private /msg) or channel (public
/msg) that you wish to say "stuff" to. The command is distributed along a
server path over the network that produces the shortest path to the user
known as target in the case of a private /msg. In a public /msg, it is
distributed globally (to all servers). To catch a PRIVMSG wending its way
to a person, you'd have to have <1> a cracked ircd on your server [see
definition a few paragraphs above] <2> IRCop status, so as to access the
"cracked" features of the server <3> a server that lies along the distribution
path for a given msg. For example, take the sample network:
A----B----C
|\ |
D-E--F
The letters represent servers; the lines represent network links between
the servers. If a PRIVMSG is sent by a user on C to a user on A, the shortest
path would be C!B!A (C to A through B). So, C, B, and A are the only servers
that "see" the PRIVMSG. IOW,assuming you have a cracked ircd _and_ are an
IRCop (a big assumption), you could also _only_ catch this PRIVMSG _if_ you
are on server A, server B, or server C. IRCops on D, E, and F would not see
it.
[snip]
>What I am advocating is let's attack the kiddie porn issue with the same
>verve that we reserve for net abusers and not walk away from it. That is all
>I have ever advocated.
And the problem with that is that there are very effective ways to stop and/or
prevent [reliably] network abuse. For instance:
o Kill people who send excess flood to the server
o Introduce code to prevent IP Spoofing
o Introduce code to notify on possible clonebots
o Use the TS protocol to [theoretically] stop netsplit hacks, desynch
abuses, etc.
o Filter out ICMP nukes to prevent people from nuking a server to force
netsplits
o Use kills, K: lines, and G: lines to punish people who abuse the network
etc.
OTOH, there simply are no reliable ways to stop and/or prevent [reliably]
distribution of kiddie porn.
>Per your question 'what do I suggest', I put my cards on the table. Be they
>good ideas or be they bad. That's the reason for this discussion (to me) is
>to find something that has a chance of working. My ideas have holes, so be
>it. Do you have an alternative/improvement to suggest? Don't for the nth
>time tell me it can't be done! A lot of time and resource has gone into why
>this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
>its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
>discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the
>argument. If that were truly the case then kiddie porn would not be illegal
>to begin with.
>How much traffic does a public irc channel handle? How is the routing of
>messages handled? What happens if/when illegal activity is suspected? What
>are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
>Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
>enforcement?
If there is suspected illegal activity, then you can start by notifying
the opers on #wasteland or whatever the oper hangout for your particular
network is. Also, you can e-mail the abuse maven at the person's site (usually
ab...@his.site.com) and ask that the person be disciplined. It is very helpful
to your case if you have some form of log of his activities and if you have
corroborating witnesses. IRC admins/ops can, if they feel like it, kill (kick
off the IRC server), K: line (ban from the IRC server), or G: line (ban from
_all_ IRC servers on the network) the offender. However, the problem is that
being on a channel named, say #kiddieporn is _not_ good enough evidence. For
instance, religious types may take to preaching to #kiddieporn mavens, or
assholes like PSB may take to attempting to attack the people there. Global
attacks of users on a given channel has a chance of severly punishing innocent
bystanders. Better evidence than joining #kiddieporn or whatever would be
fairly tough to obtain, unless someone /msg'd you offering to send a picture
and you unknowingly accepted, finding it to be a kiddie porn pic, or somesuch.
As for flagging for attention by law enforcement, this is rather tough because
the internet is rather anonymous. On an IRC server, you can't even be sure
that the address given for a person is their actual address. The userid is
easily set to whatever is wanted, and the domain portion can be faked on
IRC networks that don't have code to prevent it. So, Bubba with the address
"po...@kiddie.sex.org" isn't necessarily the user "porn" on his system, and
_may_ not even be using the system "kiddie.sex.org". Even _if_ the address
is valid, it can still be very hard to get an address or even real name for
the particular user. Those interested in trading kiddie porn probably do not
publicize their real names and/or addresses. Sorry to slip into net vernacular
so much. If you have any troubles understanding it, just ask.
[snip]
>Salt
>(consider myself religious heathen)
Heathen (Charles W. Johnson)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heathen on IRC ---- Undernet #atheism chanop | EBOAI & BAAWA as necessary
-------------------------------------------------+----------------------------
These opinions are mine. They may not be those |"It is better to keep your
of my employer or my internet provider. They are |mouth shut and be presumed
almost certainly not those of Microsoft, Inc. |an idiot than to open it and
|remove all doubt" - Twain
-------------------------------------------------+----------------------------
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list.
Violators will have complaints sent to their postmasters. DIE, you
scum-sucking braindead scourges of society! :) Have a nice day! (:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt
In article <zeus-ya02306003...@206.104.52.9>, ze...@acadiacom.net
says...
1) I would desire to be a brain surgeon would you like to make some
extrapolations from that?
2) I would really prefer Senator McCarthy that you limit your assumptions to
what you know. I realize this will severly restrict your field of endeavor but
it would have the at least the 'appearence' of accuracy.
3) I believe I had already ground ruled the private msgs were not part of the
discussion. (considerate yes, doable no)
>
>Mr. Richter, here's a little joke for you:
>
>Q: What's the best thing about a 12 year old girl?
>A: Shaving her so she looks eight.
>
>Ostensibly child porn, yes? Would you be willing to believe that this joke
>is common on a channel I frequent? You probably would. Would you be
>willing to believe that this joke IN NO WAY reflects the true thoughts and
>beliefs of ANY resident of the channel? That it is, in fact, a simple
>joke, designed to perhaps amuse and perhaps offend? I didn't think so.
As the father of a 12-yr old girl I agree it is a very 'little' joke.
When I was in grade school a kid I knew recited a story of his cats new
kittens. The family didn't want the kittens so he tied them in a bag hung it
from a clothesline and like a soldier in the calvary he attacked the bag with a
stick while riding by on his bicycle. He did this till all the kittens were
dead. At the time he and those of us who heard the story were amused. Perhaps
you and your friends find it amusing still. So be it.
One other note along that line - Bill Mauldin the artist for 'Willie and Joe'
of WWII fame explained in his book why he had almost no cartoons featuring the
German '88, he said 'there is just nothing funny about them'.
I find it difficult to believe you or your friends have children.
>
>> >Because it is possible to quantify the amount of network abuse based on
>> >the number of connections or the quantity of data transmitted. Any
>> >assessment of whether a person is transmitting kiddie porn is subjective,
>> >and therefore not subject to quantification. This isnt *that* hard to
>> >understand. Open up your mind, dont be so bigoted about your incorrect
>> >predispositions.
>>
>> You say you can't and I ask why and I'm the bigot? This may be a repetitive
>> argument for you. So be it. All I have seen to date (with one exception)
is
>> we can't so don't ask. Excuse me but who made you God? (I know I wasn't
>asked
>> and don't expect me to send you my tithing.)
>
>Untrue. Many people have told you (repeatedly, I might add) that IRC spans
>countries with different laws and legal systems than ours, so that any of
>your fascistic desires to monitor all transactions, public and private, are
>impossible in the same way that it is impossible to control Usenet. Many
>also have told you that the sheer amount of data being transmitted to make
>IRC viable and real-time makes the idea of monitoring said data utterly
>unreasonable.
I have been (for the most part) provided flat statements and these I have
rejected. I have received some e-mails in the interim that describe the depth
of the problem and capabilities of the IRC admin/ops support. Based on that,
if not impossible it is very daunting monitor the public arena. The desire nor
the capability currently exists to address the issue.
>
>> You want to tell me my solution is unworkable then tell me why. If you
don't
>> have the time for the why then please forgive me if I reject your
>arguement as
>> so much ballyhoo. Kids have to take that, adults don't.
>
>It's amazing that somebody so dense could work for NASA. Or perhaps, given
>the incident with the O-rings, maybe it isn't. Once again, for the man in
>the back with the glazed eyes. Your suggestions are unworkable as IRC
>spans multiple countries, not just the United States. Your suggestions are
>illegal *in* the United States as they require an invasion of privacy that
>even a three-year-old could recognize. Your suggestions are unreasonable
>as any attempt to monitor traffic would either require a monitoring system
>that would bring all IRC servers to a dead halt or full-time monitoring
>staff that would have to spend ridiculous amounts of time monitoring the
>traffic on their server.
I would rather make mistakes than do nothing, I chalk it up to learning curve.
I realize that may be difficult for you to understand since you appear more
concerned with doing nothing. Granted that by doing nothing you never risk
failure. Just out of curiousity, do you do your own taxes or work on your own
car?
>
>> I contend if you 'do' know (counter to your argument at the first of this
>> post) then there is action you must take, morally if not legally. There
>> should be an accepted procedure to follow in these cases. The procedure
>> should provide confidence to the reporter the it won't be ignored and the
>> potential offender that he will only be inconvenienced to the limit of
>> 'probable cause'.
>
>That's in place already. US citizens that *can* be proven to be breaking
>US laws or ISP AUPs are prosecuted or denied service. ISPs do NOT take
>action without probable cause. With the exception of rogue sites, ISPs
>*do* respond to reports of abuse or illegal activity.
I contend that if a standard process does not exist (and I understand this
to be the case) for this to take place that there is no assurance that the full
force is not brought to bear on these criminals (your word might be
'patriots').
>
>> >And that "key phrases" crap is just a masking for "speech codes".
>>
>> Guilty. My question is, could it be done? Implied is also should it be
>done?
>> These questions only apply to those messages in the 'public' arena. The
>> first, is possibly too resource intensive to perform at this time (don't
know
>> the size of the 'public' arena). The second, as long as it is confined
>to the
>> 'public' arena I believe is a valid subject for consideration.
>
>Technically? Yes, with the requisite decline in service levels, your
>Fourth Reich could be implemented. Legally? Not in this country. Should
>it be done? Not if the Constitution has anything to say about it.
On what do you base your assertion that acts in public are not responsible to
the law? Curiouser and Curiouser. On second thought forget it. You have
convinced me that no intelligence will be derived from this part of the thread.
It is a waste of my time and money.
Salt
si...@interpath.com
I just scanned thru your post and here what i have to say. :)
I agree with you that this crap shouldn't be on IRC or ANYTHING on the net.
When you sayed that the IRC Ops should get rid of the chans, I think they
should too. But I have talked personally to them before and they said that
they can't do anything about it because that a fed would have to deal with
it... And the last thing i'd like on IRC is any kinda government activity. I
can understand why they might not want to get those chans off there servers.
Becuase being that 60%(and the number is growing) of the people that have
internet access use it for porn. The servers would probably have alot more
problems on there hands, but all and all they COULD do it if they wanted to.
One thing is for sure though... Porn has always been and always will be on the
net. There are more pervos than us on the net. But its everywhere...not just
here.
--
One of dem Undernet ppl
Sidz
In article <321B21...@calvin.spiff.net>, Terrie <ter...@calvin.spiff.net>
wrote:
>Not that anyone REAllY cares, but,
> Here is how I feel about it:
>
> I do not think that the US should try to censor the
>internet. The internet does not belong to any country.
>That said, also the internet was not originally created as an
>entertainment medium, which it has now largely become. Children have a
>right to the internet just as much as anyone. The internet was
>originally an educational and communication tool. I sadly watch as that
>part of it slips away. Not that the entertainment part is bad, chatting
>is great! I totally love to connect with people.
>{{etc...etc...etc...}}
Markku Savela
I have a few technical corrections to the description of how PRIVMSG
works:
In article <Dwvu6...@eskimo.com> cw...@eskimo.com (Charles W. Johnson) writes:
>PRIVMSG target :stuff
>Where target is either the individual user (private /msg) or channel (public
>/msg) that you wish to say "stuff" to. The command is distributed along a
>server path over the network that produces the shortest path to the user
>known as target in the case of a private /msg.
Right.
>In a public /msg, it is distributed globally (to all servers).
Wrong. A message to a channel is distributed only to the servers that
are on the path between the users on this channel. Thus, if all users
are on the same server, the channel messages never leave that server.
This has the nice side effect, that even with a "cracked" server you
cannot listen to the channel traffic, unless you either join someone
from your server to the channel (which everyone can see) or, if you
manage to get your cracked server in some central position, where it
is likely to be on path between many users.
>To catch a PRIVMSG wending its way to a person, you'd have to have
><1> a cracked ircd on your server [see definition a few paragraphs
>above] <2> IRCop status, so as to access the "cracked" features of
>the server <3> a server that lies along the distribution path for a
>given msg. For example, take the sample network:
>A----B----C
>|\ |
>D-E--F
Above picture is false. IRC net links never form a loop. The net is
always acyclic spanning tree. At any single moment, there is only one
possible path between any two servers. (Of course, as links drop and
come up, this path may change dynamically). Other than this, your
description is about right:
>The letters represent servers; the lines represent network links
>between the servers. If a PRIVMSG is sent by a user on C to a user on
>A, the shortest path would be C!B!A (C to A through B). So, C, B, and
>A are the only servers that "see" the PRIVMSG. IOW,assuming you have
>a cracked ircd _and_ are an IRCop (a big assumption), you could also
>_only_ catch this PRIVMSG _if_ you are on server A, server B, or
>server C. IRCops on D, E, and F would not see it.
--
Markku Savela (m...@hemuli.tte.vtt.fi), Technical Research Centre of Finland
Multimedia Systems, P.O.Box 1203,FIN-02044 VTT,http://www.vtt.fi/tte/staff/msa/
M.D.Warren
Hey Oldpink!!...good reply mate..Im impressed!..haha..
whats the old channel like these days?..I havent used irc in a while..and
the channel seems dead these days...noone ever there when I look in...
Mike Warren. (Olympus).
Bob Officer
On Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:27:37 -0700, Kaehno <ico...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>On 26 Aug 1996, Salt wrote:
>: I am not an IRCop or IRCanything. To me that is part of the point of this
>Well, then suggest perhaps a better way of doing it rather than
>prattling on about a moot point. We keep punching holes through your
>argument because if we don't, no one will. Sweeping and unethical
>changes to people's rights and lifestyles would be affected if left
>unchecked. This is not tolerable.
Cause it is like talking about trees and a forrest to a man that never
has seen one and never will see one...
>: 1) Quit saying it someone else's problem. This medium is 'mine' as much as
IT isn't anyones until they use it, and when they are not using it,
they have no claims
>keyboard and the account. Passwords are fine and dandy assuming that
>the account hasn't been hacked or even used by other people in the
>house. Shall we lock them all up because of association or lock them up
>because someone hacked their account and did this?
Even ppp accounts are easy to spoof...
>: want these people off the net I want them incarcerated (sp?) or under a
>: doctors care (which ever works).
or in a camp...? one with ovens...?
>When you can provide a reliable method that: verifies that the user you
>think is causing the problem is really the one that owns the account or
>can verify the true identity of said individual and can provide proof
>that said individual is guilty of said crimes, I'll listen. Otherwise,
>stop wasting my time and bandwidth. You're continuing on a point that
>is moot.
>: 2) Let's use the NetHead intelligence thats available out there in cyberspace
>: and try to find a solution. The alternative is to ignore (to me a receipe for
>: real trouble) or wait for the gov't to do something about it. My experience
>: with that has been you never bump your problems up unless your ready for the
>: solutions they may provide.
>
>Offer one or step out of the ring.
IF he did have a solution to "his" problem, The warez and porn traders
would just find a different more secure method of trading.
MAybe a slight twisting of words and few secret signals, and then a
moving of the discussion to some other medium like a Client to client
program that doesn't use IRC... like WINTALK and a windows FTP Demon.
Some sort of incryption program would stop in keyword sniffers..
and besides calling a file "lit_girls.jpg" they could call it
"Bible.txt" or "Parables.txt" or "SALT's.words.of.wisdom" or
"shroud.gif". You can't judge a file by it's name.
>: I am assuming (that word again) that prior to the /msg phase a contact phase
>: is utilized. I'm all ears if another methodology is used.
>
>Not really. If I understand ircd (in theory and from what I've seen in
>ircd) (correct me if I'm wrong, server admins), it only compares the
>first argument and assigns it as the intended recipient - by nickname
>only. There's really not much you can do other than to send it by nick
>only. It doesn't do an address lookup. If it did, that would take up
>so much CPU time and cause too much load for IRC to ever be feasible.
>: What I am advocating is let's attack the kiddie porn issue with the same verve
>: that we reserve for net abusers and not walk away from it. That is all I have
>: ever advocated.
Even what is kiddie porn? It is nude or semi nude pictures of young
girls and boys, how young...? how nude... ? or does context count?
I know you will "know" kiddie porn when you "see" it! Right...
NEt abuse is overt, we can see it, it plain, This is abuse...
either we ignore it for a bit, and hope the person gets bored, or in
gross infractions we send a complain to the ISP for Charter
Violations, and yes sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't.
>: this can't be, I have not seen a similar effort into why it can. Every time
>: its mentioned, the 1st Amendment gets trotted out (like its an original
>: discovery and some 'final' authority) and that's supposed to end the argument.
>
>The methods you are proposing - if used in America - _Would_ be in
>violation of a person's first ammendment rights. Sorry if that's a fact
>that escapes your realm of comprehension. However, you can not usurp
>other's rights to have your own.
the fact is law enforcement must wait until a crime is committed...
and the fact the constitution says in no hedged terms. A person is
always inocent until brought to trial and found otherwise by a jury.
>: are the procedures to attack the problem? What can IRC admin and ops do?
>IRCAdmins and ops can only k-line the users and/or contact their ISPs.
>That's just about it.
I think they <IRC<server>OPs don't want to open the can of worms
trying to control content. then If something did slip through the
cracks they would be responcible. The IRC<server>ops put the burden on
the users for their actions.
>: Could 'key phases' be flagged for attention by either the op or law
>: enforcement?
>
>No. That would require user's private conversations to be monitorred
>and that's something that users nor admins have the time or resources
>for. Nor would 99.999975% of them want to. You don't seem to
>comprehend that people don't want their conversations to be monitorred
>regardless of whether or not they are engaged in illegal activity. I
>sure as hell don't and can't think of a single person of that I know
>that would. You try sifting through 'terrabytes' of information a
>day... oh sure, have fun.
And then some smart luser would write a script that would do the
following
1.join a channel
2. /say word in the filter like "boysexpictures" or "warez"
3 /quit channel
4.change nick
5. go to 1. <loop until hell freezes over>
Now see 1000 users doing this.. and changing server randomly to
boot...
>: This is not a 'magic wand' issue, where we can wave the wand and the problem
>: is magically solved. I happily accept any suggestions to improve the
>: situation and reject the attitude that nothing can be done. This is my
>: neighborhood too. If I don't want someone to endanger myself and my neighbors
>: then I have to be willing to speak/act to do something about it. To me the
>: standard has be planted and the battle joined now it's a matter of which side
>: are you on and how we fight.
>Keep dreaming. Maybe you'll find the dream you are looking for. If you
>have such problems with an animal that can not and will not be tamed by
>the likes of you, get off of the net. It's a dangerous place and it's
>not nice. Perhaps it would just be simpler if you turned off your
>computer and walked away. Nothing is stopping you from doing so.
It is more like a nightmare. I perfer to be held for my own actions by
my own peers.
and with the abilty to /ignore and /silence I don't need Salt or PBS
guarding my morals or thoughts or who with I corespond . maybe he
needs to find some small BBS with one of those awful word filters
built into it.
OR buy software that will black out objectionable thing and
content... like "safe surf" did the web pages at the White House.
to force his morality on me just makes me mad. I bet he disney movie
Pocahontus wasn't kiddie porn... IT was a story about a man that
caputes a "11 year old Native" and makes he his wife...
That is kiddie porn.
Bob Officer | bo...@s3.sonnet.com
Tracy, California |
| Place [RHO] in subject line
|
Dennis Moore
Tommy Galia (tomm...@pacbell.net) wrote:
: > As Franklin said: (and I paraphrase) "He would sacrifice Liberty for
: > security deserves neither". As a *Christ*ian (:-) ), I support your
: > right to espouse any philosophy you wish as long as you don't trample
: > on the civil liberties of another.
: witch in this case could be ment to say those who desire to give up
: freedom in order to controll child porn will not get nor do they deserve
: rules to have channels that discuss satanisum or athesim. ok then what
: sex and drugs. ok now lets see we don't agree with this athesist
: untill you idiots have given them evreything they bitch about. now
: undernet has become purely cristian network. anyone caught discussing or
: belived to be discussing anything but religon will be g-lined. come on
: whole internet. then the whole world. ya sure this is extreem but what
1) questions end in question marks.
2) ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/apps/ispell-3.1.20.src.gz
--
pity this busy monster, manunkind, Dennis Moore, eboai Sarah
not. Progress is a comfortable disease. arc...@tamu.edu McLachlan
-e.e. cummings: One Times One archon on the irc "Black"
If i cried me a river of all my confessions would i drown in my shallow regret?