World Leaders Meet at United Nations; Control of the Internet on the Table !!!

[carpet ride]

I hate to say it but this conversation is just bad PR. BM I would advise to put your disclaimer about child porn in every post of yours above.

[puppies]

https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

I think BM is completely correct.  I think production should be very harshly punished.  I think sexualization of children is terrible, for the individual, and for society at large.  I wouldn't look at it if it were legal.  I also think that decriminalization is the best way to reduce the number of exploited children going forward.

[onceuponatime]

@datasecuritynode

You really really need to study a history of the Holy Inquisition before advocating taking power from individuals and giving it to righteous authorities. In power structures (power over others) it is often the perverts and psychopaths that rise to the top.

I don't have a solution to offer as to how to stop child abuse, but I suggest the place to begin looking is to loving family structures. Wanted and loved children are not likely to be abused.

Choose to live in a community where people know each other and shun anyone who exploits others, especially children.

The "authorities" to whom  you want to give the power to spy on the internet are the "authorities" who ripped native kids from their loving families and cultural settings and sent them to residential schools where a large percentage underwent sexual and physical
abuse.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

  Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable.     

I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....

Can you explain why it doesn't apply?

That logic can't apply because if already existing child porn were legal, the kids who were in it would be exploited in an ongoing manner, every time somebody watches it, it's an infringement on their rights.

I would say real child porn should be illegal. Computer generated though? That could subsidize the market reducing incentive to produce while not legitimizing trade in content that already shouldn't have existed.

If a child porn user looks at a child's picture and no one ever knows about it, then was anyone actually harmed... did it actually happen?  Claiming the child continues to be harmed simply because some anonymous pervert *might* be looking at their photo is a bit of a stretch, especially because whether or not you attempt to "block it" the statement remains true.  That same pervert may be looking at that same photo acquired over freenet and said child wouldn't know the difference.

That said, I am sure that some adult children may volunteer their childhood photos to the cause and still other children may be dead along with their parents.   In which case it should be trivial to voluntarily take down any photos at the request of the child in question which eliminates any "imagined" to the child.   The end result is to reduce the value of child porn and thus the incentive to produce it.   

All of that said people are not always rational about these kinds of topics.  Some people would gladly kill someone just for looking at child porn the wrong way.  Others would gladly spend unimaginable amounts of OTHER PEOPLES in the hope of preventing even a single instance of child abuse.   

It is the pursuit of perfection that drives people to pay extreme prices to achieve meaningless gains.

I think you took an EXTREMELY puritan view of what child 'porn' means.

These are often children which are being forced to commit sex acts in various forms and/or to be naked. The captured videos and images of these acts are the continuation of their real world violation. The crime WAS committed, and now that crime is being replayed over and over to the masses of sickos. The compulsions that drive the thinking of these people is like that of a drug addict. Unaddressed/Untreated they need their fix. Cost means nothing to them. Security in anonymity means everything.

That said, I have not heard of any of the child porn rings getting busted in recent history mentioning anything about how much they were profiting from it. For some, there is just the 'joy' in committing the acts and then sharing them. Having a following. The more people they can reach, the more they get off on it. Their profit motive is fame among his/her peers.

With that said, the decentralized internet is his and others sickos dream come true. They get to share in their crimes even more.. with even greater security with no way for legal enforcement agencies to do anything about it.. it's the same situation the US now frets over empowering their terrorists counterparts with more secure communication capabilities that put them in the dark.

In the centralized internet where your privacy and rights etc can be trampled on, enforcement is more likely to be able to track down the perp/perv and stop them from committing the crimes in the first place. Prevent more at least.

The fact is that there are really bad people in the world who want to do really bad things to others. Their rights end where your rights begin. A decentralized Internet could very well ensure this protection of everyones rights.. We don't have it yet, so there is no way to really tell how that technology is going to look yet.

In my scenario, the decentralized internet is enhancing crime... helping in hurting/destroying the rights of children in this scenario. I use it as an extreme example because it's an easy example that nobody in their right mind has any other position on it other than prevention. It just becomes a debate of how you prevent.. what tools can you use? The decentralized internet took away law enforcements best tool for prevention if it is one where there is no way to respond to certain things which are undeniable violations of others rights.

I think we need to figure out ways that things like this can be handled in a manner that is better than the way it is now. I don't know how that works yet or what it looks like, but what I am talking about isn't something like Silk Road where the legalities are questionable/debatable by some and a dark market is made from people who just want to buy sell their warz.. I am talking about fundamental rights to life and liberty of people.. and perhaps even animals while we are at it. Rights are not endless.. they end where others rights begin... and with that there has to be limits..it's a question of who decides that. The state has demonstrated what they can do to have zero regard for any rights when it suits them.

Anyways.. I know this has been debated to death before.. it's really kind of a pointless exercise until we have some kind of probable solution on the table to consider. Maybe the point is to just ask the question.. consider the possibilities.. allow creative genius to work on a solution that could provide an imperfect middle ground that the majority can get behind.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

Yes, you should take as much precaution as possible when discussing such emotionally loaded issues, even when you're demonstrably right. Sadly, the vast majority of people are not utilitarian, and do not reason based on the maximization of the success of the end goals.

I often rethink of this case of an Indian policeman that caused public outrage because he compared "the inability to enforce a law against illegal betting is like saying to women,  ”because you can't prevent rape, you should enjoy it”." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/prevent-rape-enjoy-it-india-police-chief
It was an analogy, probably a bad one, and for a bad motive. Regardless of that, he never said that he thought "women should enjoy rape", but was treated exactly like if he had, just because he put those two words one after the other. Most people can't stop and think.

Yea. I appreciate the attempt to get people to think about issues in a different way, but DE is gonna have a field day with this post. LOL

[inarizushi]

Yes, you should take as much precaution as possible when discussing such emotionally loaded issues, even when you're demonstrably right. Sadly, the vast majority of people are not utilitarian, and do not reason based on the maximization of the success of the end goals.

I often rethink of this case of an Indian policeman that caused public outrage because he compared "the inability to enforce a law against illegal betting is like saying to women,  ”because you can't prevent rape, you should enjoy it”." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/prevent-rape-enjoy-it-india-police-chief
It was an analogy, probably a bad one, and for a bad motive. Regardless of that, he never said that he thought "women should enjoy rape", but was treated exactly like if he had, just because he put those two words one after the other. Most people can't stop and think.

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

If a child porn user looks at a child's picture and no one ever knows about it, then was anyone actually harmed... did it actually happen?  Claiming the child continues to be harmed simply because some anonymous pervert *might* be looking at their photo is a bit of a stretch, especially because whether or not you attempt to "block it" the statement remains true.  That same pervert may be looking at that same photo acquired over freenet and said child wouldn't know the difference.

If it were legal the child would have a means of finding out if their pics are being looked at (looking for himself on the cp market), it would also bring more potential eyeballs to them. Additionally, it could cause reputation harm. I wonder if some elitist country club might someday exclude members known to be subjects of child porn.

Same logic for why hacking celebrity iPhones to see pics of J-Laws butthole is illegal. Consent to appear in porn matters and a kid can't give it. Also if it's legal there's no take backs, it's there and legal for the whole world to see, and in all likelihood will eventually work its way to a website of some kind.

That said, I am sure that some adult children may volunteer their childhood photos to the cause and still other children may be dead along with their parents.   In which case it should be trivial to voluntarily take down any photos at the request of the child in question which eliminates any "imagined" to the child.   The end result is to reduce the value of child porn and thus the incentive to produce it.   

I was thinking about this too after I read your comments. Problem I see here though is that if there is a legal market for childporn, some people might think, "Hey how can we guarantee little Suzy has an income option in the future regardless of how her life pans out? Hmmm....." Especially with the job market being like it is. Supply for labor is going to continue to shit all over demand for the foreseeable future, especially with automation, and people are only going to get more and more desperate (barring some kind of blockchain and/or politically based economic revolution).

Also, it wouldn't be trivial to voluntarily take down photos at the child's request... this is the internet, come on now...

All of that said people are not always rational about these kinds of topics.  Some people would gladly kill someone just for looking at child porn the wrong way.  Others would gladly spend unimaginable amounts of OTHER PEOPLES in the hope of preventing even a single instance of child abuse.   

It is the pursuit of perfection that drives people to pay extreme prices to achieve meaningless gains.

This I agree with 100% People are way too emotional about the issue to be able to make rational policies about it. The entire criminal justice system needs a good hard looking at with a giant dose of objectivity.

[bytemaster]

  Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable.     

I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....

Can you explain why it doesn't apply?

That logic can't apply because if already existing child porn were legal, the kids who were in it would be exploited in an ongoing manner, every time somebody watches it, it's an infringement on their rights.

I would say real child porn should be illegal. Computer generated though? That could subsidize the market reducing incentive to produce while not legitimizing trade in content that already shouldn't have existed.

If a child porn user looks at a child's picture and no one ever knows about it, then was anyone actually harmed... did it actually happen?  Claiming the child continues to be harmed simply because some anonymous pervert *might* be looking at their photo is a bit of a stretch, especially because whether or not you attempt to "block it" the statement remains true.  That same pervert may be looking at that same photo acquired over freenet and said child wouldn't know the difference.

That said, I am sure that some adult children may volunteer their childhood photos to the cause and still other children may be dead along with their parents.   In which case it should be trivial to voluntarily take down any photos at the request of the child in question which eliminates any "imagined" to the child.   The end result is to reduce the value of child porn and thus the incentive to produce it.   

All of that said people are not always rational about these kinds of topics.  Some people would gladly kill someone just for looking at child porn the wrong way.  Others would gladly spend unimaginable amounts of OTHER PEOPLES in the hope of preventing even a single instance of child abuse.   

It is the pursuit of perfection that drives people to pay extreme prices to achieve meaningless gains.

I just want to officially state the following:

1. I am 100% against child pornography and do not wish to support it in any way.
2. I am 100% against harming children and wish to see every measure taken to minimize that harm
3. I could be wrong in my own assessment of how best to minimize the production and distribution of child porn at the expense of children. 

I am merely expressing my opinions on how to achieve the same goals as everyone else and nothing I say should be construed to suggest that I support harming children in any way.   

[bytemaster]

  Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable.     

I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....

Can you explain why it doesn't apply?

That logic can't apply because if already existing child porn were legal, the kids who were in it would be exploited in an ongoing manner, every time somebody watches it, it's an infringement on their rights.

I would say real child porn should be illegal. Computer generated though? That could subsidize the market reducing incentive to produce while not legitimizing trade in content that already shouldn't have existed.

If a child porn user looks at a child's picture and no one ever knows about it, then was anyone actually harmed... did it actually happen?  Claiming the child continues to be harmed simply because some anonymous pervert *might* be looking at their photo is a bit of a stretch, especially because whether or not you attempt to "block it" the statement remains true.  That same pervert may be looking at that same photo acquired over freenet and said child wouldn't know the difference.

That said, I am sure that some adult children may volunteer their childhood photos to the cause and still other children may be dead along with their parents.   In which case it should be trivial to voluntarily take down any photos at the request of the child in question which eliminates any "imagined" to the child.   The end result is to reduce the value of child porn and thus the incentive to produce it.   

All of that said people are not always rational about these kinds of topics.  Some people would gladly kill someone just for looking at child porn the wrong way.  Others would gladly spend unimaginable amounts of OTHER PEOPLES in the hope of preventing even a single instance of child abuse.   

It is the pursuit of perfection that drives people to pay extreme prices to achieve meaningless gains. 

[unreadPostsSinceLastVisit]

  Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable.     

I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....

Can you explain why it doesn't apply?

That logic can't apply because if already existing child porn were legal, the kids who were in it would be exploited in an ongoing manner, every time somebody watches it, it's an infringement on their rights.

I would say real child porn should be illegal. Computer generated though? That could subsidize the market reducing incentive to produce while not legitimizing trade in content that already shouldn't have existed.

[consensus-analytics.com]

99% of people are AFRAID of what would happen if they respond in love rather than violence and control. 

One of the best sentences I read on this forum 

[onceuponatime]

"To give you some feel for the moment, here is a passage from J.P. Barlow’s A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, published in 1996:

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

So, with a separation imperative in mind, we were confronted with the fact that some kind of law or justice service was necessary. And so, I began digging into the subject."

Justice Without State
 http://www.freemansperspective.com/justice-without-state/

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

So there are two issues:   

1. what is the object best approach to minimize the harm to society caused by these issues
2. what is the approach that most people will subjectively believe to be the best

As a society only 1% have the time, critical thinking, and emotional maturity to recognize the "right" answer.  This means that 99% will reject the "right" answer and instead opt for something else.

If you want to get people to join the cause for freedom, you need to give them something to fear more than child porn, terrorism, and hate speech.   It is sad to say, but you must manipulate people into taking the right actions for the wrong reasons.   Unfortunately, this is how the elite justify the propaganda machine.   Many of the elite believe they are doing the "right" thing and thus feel morally justified in manipulating the masses to vote against their own best interest. 

So this leaves us in the tough spot of having to find reasons the average man can get behind for supporting free speech. 

First they came for the Child Pornography, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not into child porn.
Then they came for the Terrorists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Terrorist.
Then they came for the Hate Speech, and I did not speak out—
Because I did not hate.
Then they came for me—and it was illegal to speak out for me.

So the bottom line is that we will need to go through a discovery process of our own to determine how to sell decentralization to the masses.

I don't think they will reject the right answer.. it's just going to be the answer that is best sold... which depends on if we have the right answer packaged as such.

Freedom lovers can't just keep beating their chests and play the martyr underdogs forever. If we are serious about imposing our will on the masses to be freedom lovers than we need to take more affirmative steps as the centralizing players.

Yes.. I worded it that way on purpose. No need to sugar coat what we are talking about here.

[onceuponatime]

  Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable.     

I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....

Let's ask Jared.

Let's ask the Grand Inquisitor

[Tuck Fheman]

  Therefore, making childporn illegal increases its price and makes it more profitable to produce which makes kidnapping and human trafficking more profitable.     

I can follow your thinking if we speak about cannabis etc. but this logic can definitely not apply here (I mean the conclusion can't be the same)....

Let's ask Jared.