>> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 6:01 PM
>> Subject: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
>> >
>> >
>> > Following on from my earlier post, it seems to me that looking at it
>> > from
>> > this angle, it *would* be useful to have some kind of formal statement
>> > from someone involved in the making of violent porn in America that
>> > explains the American regulatory code and specifically how the
>> > regulations, in practice, affect the conditions in which this imagery
>> > is
>> > made.
>> >
>> > Av8R posted, and I can't find it now, figures from somewhere that
>> > showed
>> > that something like 86% of such imagery derives from the Americas. I
>> > don't
>> > know if we can get figures of the proportion that comes from N.America.
>> >
>> > This would demonstrate that the vast majority of these images come from
>> > a
>> > heavily regulated industry. The populist point is that this government
>> > is
>> > trying to criminalise looking at the kind of fantasy images that are
>> > produced in conditions subject to the stringent protections imposed by
>> > the
>> > american relegious right. You couldn't dream of a better regulated
>> > porn
>> > industry with a smaller chance of any real abuse taking place.
>> >
>> > I was thinking of Midori, not because of her pictures, but because she
>> > knows the industry.
>> >
>> > Thoughts ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>> >
>> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>> >
>> > Report abuse
>> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2201
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2203
>
>
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 21:31:46
This is also why I made an earlier post about internet scams and premium rate diallers.
These DO have some history of logging people off their computers and on to premium rate numbers which end up in places like Moldova and ex- Eastern Bloc countries.
Here there probably is some probability of harm happening. Yet, when it comes to doing something about this, the government has been slow to sloth-like. And BT has rigorously enforced payments, even where individuals have had this happen to them without their knowledge.
It is a bit of a tangent. But then again, not. On the one hand, the government wishes to criminalise access to a range of websites, largely US, which do not feature real abuse. On the other, the government seems to have real problems doing anything about a scam perpetrated in many instances by organised crime in which there is a real likelihood of harm being committed.
The difference? Well, I would guess that the government gets nothing from the internet content - but the premium rate industry is worth £1 billion plus per year to them.
Tangent, tangent, tangent. However, I did get fairly involved in this issue a few months back....made some useful press contacts and also some MP's with an interest in it. It wouldn't hurt to use this to shout hypocrites very loudly in the government direction.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Following on from my earlier post, it seems to me that looking at it from this angle, it *would* be useful to have some kind of formal statement from someone involved in the making of violent porn in America that explains the American regulatory code and specifically how the regulations, in practice, affect the conditions in which this imagery is made.
> Av8R posted, and I can't find it now, figures from somewhere that showed that something like 86% of such imagery derives from the Americas. I don't know if we can get figures of the proportion that comes from N.America.
> This would demonstrate that the vast majority of these images come from a heavily regulated industry. The populist point is that this government is trying to criminalise looking at the kind of fantasy images that are produced in conditions subject to the stringent protections imposed by the american relegious right. You couldn't dream of a better regulated porn industry with a smaller chance of any real abuse taking place.
> I was thinking of Midori, not because of her pictures, but because she knows the industry.
> Thoughts ?
clare, 23 Oct 2005 23:06:05
Sorry but it is a tangent! Hypocrisy is usually a pretty weak argument. There are lots of bad things in life, the failure to legislate against all of them doesn't mean there isn't a real need to legislate against one of them. (Even if they left out of your bug-bears)
Do you have any comment on the usefulness of the Sentencing Advisory Panel's guidance, i.e do you think my analysis of the analogy with the extreme porn case holds up. *
Do you think it is worthwhile to get some kind of deposition from someone involved in the American porn industry.
Does anyone know what % of internet porn orignates in N. America? (Av8R - what was the source of your figures?)
Thanks
Clare
* without being affected by the fact that I'm a feminist! ;)
Author wrote:
> This is also why I made an earlier post about internet scams and premium rate diallers.
> These DO have some history of logging people off their computers and on to premium rate numbers which end up in places like Moldova and ex- Eastern Bloc countries.
> Here there probably is some probability of harm happening. Yet, when it comes to doing something about this, the government has been slow to sloth-like. And BT has rigorously enforced payments, even where individuals have had this happen to them without their knowledge.
> It is a bit of a tangent. But then again, not. On the one hand, the government wishes to criminalise access to a range of websites, largely US, which do not feature real abuse. On the other, the government seems to have real problems doing anything about a scam perpetrated in many instances by organised crime in which there is a real likelihood of harm being committed.
> The difference? Well, I would guess that the government gets nothing from the internet content - but the premium rate industry is worth £1 billion plus per year to them.
> Tangent, tangent, tangent. However, I did get fairly involved in this issue a few months back....made some useful press contacts and also some MP's with an interest in it. It wouldn't hurt to use this to shout hypocrites very loudly in the government direction.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Following on from my earlier post, it seems to me that looking at it from this angle, it *would* be useful to have some kind of formal statement from someone involved in the making of violent porn in America that explains the American regulatory code and specifically how the regulations, in practice, affect the conditions in which this imagery is made.
> > Av8R posted, and I can't find it now, figures from somewhere that showed that something like 86% of such imagery derives from the Americas. I don't know if we can get figures of the proportion that comes from N.America.
> > This would demonstrate that the vast majority of these images come from a heavily regulated industry. The populist point is that this government is trying to criminalise looking at the kind of fantasy images that are produced in conditions subject to the stringent protections imposed by the american relegious right. You couldn't dream of a better regulated porn industry with a smaller chance of any real abuse taking place.
> > I was thinking of Midori, not because of her pictures, but because she knows the industry.
> > Thoughts ?
>
>
AV8R, 23 Oct 2005 23:26:33
As far as I know, there at no official statistics kept anywhere on this.
My comment was based on personal observation, but I have also since done some random sampling of commercial sites listed with google, and those numbers do appear to be quite accurate.
However I also posted an excerpt from the internet watch foundations website, that stated of all the complaints they have recieved:
"During the first 6 months of 2005 the IWF received 1074 reports categorised as 'potentially obscene adult material'.
This was 9% of all reports submitted to the IWF hotline in this period.
81% appeared to be hosted in the US, 5% in China, 5% in Russia and 9% in other countries.
Of those 1074 reports, 140 or 13% were assessed by the IWF hotline team to contain material that would potentially breach the Obscene Publications Act.
53% of those reports related to acts of extreme sexual torture.
Of the 140 reports, 60% appeared to be hosted in the US, 14% in China, 4% in Russia and 22% in 'other' countries.
No potentially illegal material appeared to be hosted or domain registered in the UK."
It should be noted though, that here, other countries would most likely be western nations, and so would also have strong health and safety, legal, and professional standards.
But even the IWF's own figures agree that the vast majority, 81%, of material they have recieved complaints about was hosted in the USA.
Av8r
Author wrote:
> Sorry but it is a tangent! Hypocrisy is usually a pretty weak argument. There are lots of bad things in life, the failure to legislate against all of them doesn't mean there isn't a real need to legislate against one of them. (Even if they left out of your bug-bears)
> Do you have any comment on the usefulness of the Sentencing Advisory Panel's guidance, i.e do you think my analysis of the analogy with the extreme porn case holds up. *
> Do you think it is worthwhile to get some kind of deposition from someone involved in the American porn industry.
> Does anyone know what % of internet porn orignates in N. America? (Av8R - what was the source of your figures?)
> Thanks
> Clare
> * without being affected by the fact that I'm a feminist! ;)
> Author wrote:
> > This is also why I made an earlier post about internet scams and premium rate diallers.
> > These DO have some history of logging people off their computers and on to premium rate numbers which end up in places like Moldova and ex- Eastern Bloc countries.
> > Here there probably is some probability of harm happening. Yet, when it comes to doing something about this, the government has been slow to sloth-like. And BT has rigorously enforced payments, even where individuals have had this happen to them without their knowledge.
> > It is a bit of a tangent. But then again, not. On the one hand, the government wishes to criminalise access to a range of websites, largely US, which do not feature real abuse. On the other, the government seems to have real problems doing anything about a scam perpetrated in many instances by organised crime in which there is a real likelihood of harm being committed.
> > The difference? Well, I would guess that the government gets nothing from the internet content - but the premium rate industry is worth £1 billion plus per year to them.
> > Tangent, tangent, tangent. However, I did get fairly involved in this issue a few months back....made some useful press contacts and also some MP's with an interest in it. It wouldn't hurt to use this to shout hypocrites very loudly in the government direction.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Following on from my earlier post, it seems to me that looking at it from this angle, it *would* be useful to have some kind of formal statement from someone involved in the making of violent porn in America that explains the American regulatory code and specifically how the regulations, in practice, affect the conditions in which this imagery is made.
> > > Av8R posted, and I can't find it now, figures from somewhere that showed that something like 86% of such imagery derives from the Americas. I don't know if we can get figures of the proportion that comes from N.America.
> > > This would demonstrate that the vast majority of these images come from a heavily regulated industry. The populist point is that this government is trying to criminalise looking at the kind of fantasy images that are produced in conditions subject to the stringent protections imposed by the american relegious right. You couldn't dream of a better regulated porn industry with a smaller chance of any real abuse taking place.
> > > I was thinking of Midori, not because of her pictures, but because she knows the industry.
> > > Thoughts ?
> >
> >
>
>
clare, 23 Oct 2005 23:37:14
Thanks for re-posting that IWF data.
Why do you think other countries would most likely be western nations, and if so, which ones?
Does anyone (Roel?) know what the regulatory regime covers the production of pornographic material in Holland or Germany?
Author wrote:
> It should be noted though, that here, other countries would most likely be western nations, and so would also have strong health and safety, legal, and professional standards.
> Av8r
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 23:55:55
OK: Comments on sentencing panel separate.
However, apart from the fact that I DID own up (four times!) to this being tangential, it is just possible that we are at cross purposes here.
I approve of and appreciate the intellectual rigour that is going into many of the submissions. I am sure that under almost any system of rational points-scoring, we will have the government on the ropes and out for the count (and other such metaphors) in a trice.
But.... I don't think I have ever won an audience by means of rational argument: and the same goes for debate. Its an awful lot of emotive stuff. Plus first impressions. Plus, at the end of the day, whether you speak their language, sound 'nice', and have them nodding in agreement.
So whilst I hope I am contributing to the rational argument at some level, I think it is equally important for us to sift through the bright ideas and damp squibs that emerge on this board in order to find the head-nodding stuff.
In the rational world, hypocrisy is, I agree, a very weak argument. In the irrational world - the one in which most debates are won and lost - it can often play very strongly.
We need both.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Sorry but it is a tangent! Hypocrisy is usually a pretty weak argument. There are lots of bad things in life, the failure to legislate against all of them doesn't mean there isn't a real need to legislate against one of them. (Even if they left out of your bug-bears)
> Do you have any comment on the usefulness of the Sentencing Advisory Panel's guidance, i.e do you think my analysis of the analogy with the extreme porn case holds up. *
> Do you think it is worthwhile to get some kind of deposition from someone involved in the American porn industry.
> Does anyone know what % of internet porn orignates in N. America? (Av8R - what was the source of your figures?)
> Thanks
> Clare
> * without being affected by the fact that I'm a feminist! ;)
> Author wrote:
> > This is also why I made an earlier post about internet scams and premium rate diallers.
> > These DO have some history of logging people off their computers and on to premium rate numbers which end up in places like Moldova and ex- Eastern Bloc countries.
> > Here there probably is some probability of harm happening. Yet, when it comes to doing something about this, the government has been slow to sloth-like. And BT has rigorously enforced payments, even where individuals have had this happen to them without their knowledge.
> > It is a bit of a tangent. But then again, not. On the one hand, the government wishes to criminalise access to a range of websites, largely US, which do not feature real abuse. On the other, the government seems to have real problems doing anything about a scam perpetrated in many instances by organised crime in which there is a real likelihood of harm being committed.
> > The difference? Well, I would guess that the government gets nothing from the internet content - but the premium rate industry is worth £1 billion plus per year to them.
> > Tangent, tangent, tangent. However, I did get fairly involved in this issue a few months back....made some useful press contacts and also some MP's with an interest in it. It wouldn't hurt to use this to shout hypocrites very loudly in the government direction.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Following on from my earlier post, it seems to me that looking at it from this angle, it *would* be useful to have some kind of formal statement from someone involved in the making of violent porn in America that explains the American regulatory code and specifically how the regulations, in practice, affect the conditions in which this imagery is made.
> > > Av8R posted, and I can't find it now, figures from somewhere that showed that something like 86% of such imagery derives from the Americas. I don't know if we can get figures of the proportion that comes from N.America.
> > > This would demonstrate that the vast majority of these images come from a heavily regulated industry. The populist point is that this government is trying to criminalise looking at the kind of fantasy images that are produced in conditions subject to the stringent protections imposed by the american relegious right. You couldn't dream of a better regulated porn industry with a smaller chance of any real abuse taking place.
> > > I was thinking of Midori, not because of her pictures, but because she knows the industry.
> > > Thoughts ?
> >
> >
>
>
clare, 24 Oct 2005 00:09:13
Sure, it's horses for courses. Some "audiences" including the Home Office will want to see a fairly rigorous argument. Making sure that we actually do the work to get them on the ropes seems pretty worthwhile to me. I hoped this thread would contribute to that.
I noticed that you were owning up to it being tangential. My point was to ask you nicely not to hi-jack my thread with a tangential point that you have raised before. Please :)
Author wrote:
> OK: Comments on sentencing panel separate.
> However, apart from the fact that I DID own up (four times!) to this being tangential, it is just possible that we are at cross purposes here.
> I approve of and appreciate the intellectual rigour that is going into many of the submissions. I am sure that under almost any system of rational points-scoring, we will have the government on the ropes and out for the count (and other such metaphors) in a trice.
> But.... I don't think I have ever won an audience by means of rational argument: and the same goes for debate. Its an awful lot of emotive stuff. Plus first impressions. Plus, at the end of the day, whether you speak their language, sound 'nice', and have them nodding in agreement.
> So whilst I hope I am contributing to the rational argument at some level, I think it is equally important for us to sift through the bright ideas and damp squibs that emerge on this board in order to find the head-nodding stuff.
> In the rational world, hypocrisy is, I agree, a very weak argument. In the irrational world - the one in which most debates are won and lost - it can often play very strongly.
> We need both.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Sorry but it is a tangent! Hypocrisy is usually a pretty weak argument. There are lots of bad things in life, the failure to legislate against all of them doesn't mean there isn't a real need to legislate against one of them. (Even if they left out of your bug-bears)
> > Do you have any comment on the usefulness of the Sentencing Advisory Panel's guidance, i.e do you think my analysis of the analogy with the extreme porn case holds up. *
> > Do you think it is worthwhile to get some kind of deposition from someone involved in the American porn industry.
> > Does anyone know what % of internet porn orignates in N. America? (Av8R - what was the source of your figures?)
> > Thanks
> > Clare
> > * without being affected by the fact that I'm a feminist! ;)
> > Author wrote:
> > > This is also why I made an earlier post about internet scams and premium rate diallers.
> > > These DO have some history of logging people off their computers and on to premium rate numbers which end up in places like Moldova and ex- Eastern Bloc countries.
> > > Here there probably is some probability of harm happening. Yet, when it comes to doing something about this, the government has been slow to sloth-like. And BT has rigorously enforced payments, even where individuals have had this happen to them without their knowledge.
> > > It is a bit of a tangent. But then again, not. On the one hand, the government wishes to criminalise access to a range of websites, largely US, which do not feature real abuse. On the other, the government seems to have real problems doing anything about a scam perpetrated in many instances by organised crime in which there is a real likelihood of harm being committed.
> > > The difference? Well, I would guess that the government gets nothing from the internet content - but the premium rate industry is worth £1 billion plus per year to them.
> > > Tangent, tangent, tangent. However, I did get fairly involved in this issue a few months back....made some useful press contacts and also some MP's with an interest in it. It wouldn't hurt to use this to shout hypocrites very loudly in the government direction.
> > > Regards,
> > > M
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Following on from my earlier post, it seems to me that looking at it from this angle, it *would* be useful to have some kind of formal statement from someone involved in the making of violent porn in America that explains the American regulatory code and specifically how the regulations, in practice, affect the conditions in which this imagery is made.
> > > > Av8R posted, and I can't find it now, figures from somewhere that showed that something like 86% of such imagery derives from the Americas. I don't know if we can get figures of the proportion that comes from N.America.
> > > > This would demonstrate that the vast majority of these images come from a heavily regulated industry. The populist point is that this government is trying to criminalise looking at the kind of fantasy images that are produced in conditions subject to the stringent protections imposed by the american relegious right. You couldn't dream of a better regulated porn industry with a smaller chance of any real abuse taking place.
> > > > I was thinking of Midori, not because of her pictures, but because she knows the industry.
> > > > Thoughts ?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Manniq, 24 Oct 2005 00:26:05
On the whole, the paper seems reasonable. At least, it is reasonable in respect of how it feels sentences should be set - and maybe this reasonableness is why it manages to get away with a number of pretty gross assertions or inconsistencies when it comes to dealing with 'facts' and also points of principle.
First, it seems to me that it has real difficulties with the concept of a pseudo-photograph...and this is a difficulty that is going to become worse, rather than better as time goes by.
I would agree that ANYTHING that involves a real child has some capacity for harm, even if it comes back to the child at a much later stage in life. So using children's head s on adult bodies is a no-no. But of course, morphing and pseudo-technology has moved a long way.
Does the Act cover illustration? WHat happens where an illustration is made to take on photographic qualities? Or where a photograph has been solarised and then had tone taken out and used as a guide to illustration?
I suspect these are the sort of debates that come out under copyright law with respect to whether the work is different or substantially the same as the original. Given the current proposals use the weasel word 'realistic', I think this is an area we need to understand fully. At base, they seem to be trying to get themselves off their hook saying that even where there is no harm whatsoever, still, the photos may have a corrupting effect.
This is the second area of difficulty. As you yourself quote: "Possession itself cannot be taken as an indication that the defendant is likely to commit an (other) crime."
So in what way is 'corruption' deemed to happen, given that they also suggest that where an individual does not seek out such images, they would not be guilty of an offence?
You see them as placing 'thought crime' at the low end of the spectrum. I think they have impaled themselves logically here. You can't commit the crime unless you already have intent - unless you are already corrupt to some degree - but you will be punished because you have downloaded or possess material that corrupts you.
You extracted the conclusion that: "The fact that both fantasy images and real images have an equal tendency to corrupt, was only relevant to distribution cases. I.e. cases that already covered by the OPA for offences within the UK."
I can see where you got that but actually, I think they contradict this (as above).
In terms of facts, there is a lot of stuff about how the internet makes images more available 'by accident'. And how the internet is fuelling demand. If you would like, I will try and lay my hands on a piece that I read recently that gave a very high proportion of internet child porn as being 20 to 30 years old. In other words, the burgeoning trade is more myth than is claimed.
If anything, the culprit is not so much the internet, as cheap availability of home video, digital recorders, etc.
And that last is a serious point: we suspect a lot of material that may come within the remit of the government proposal will include home-made stuff between consenting couples. On occasion, stuff not even published to the internet, but kept for home viewing. It may be that the internet is actually the wrong target, as far as the government's intention is concerned.
On your tail-end quotes:
> "We were referred to evidence that child abusers commonly use and are influenced by pornography. An offender convicted only of *possessing* child pornography clearly cannot be sentenced on the basis that is an actual or potential child abuser, but those who produce or distribute material do have a more direct responsibility for its eventual use, as well as encouraging further production. We concluded that sentencing levels for those convicted of the more serious offences of making, showing or distributing images of children should reflect that responsibility."
This bit, I think, does not make sense, taken with the rest of the piece. They do believe there is evidence that porn influences. This underlying belief appears elsewhere in wording about 'corrupts'. (see below)
"We accept, however, that a pseudo-photograph and a real photograph may have an equally corrupting effect on the viewer..."
Regards,
M
AV8R, 24 Oct 2005 00:53:33
Author wrote:
> Thanks for re-posting that IWF data.
> Why do you think other countries would most likely be western nations, and if so, which ones?
> Does anyone (Roel?) know what the regulatory regime covers the production of pornographic material in Holland or Germany?
For commercial internet pornography to succeed requires the following:
1. A host country with progressive laws regarding sexuality and pornography, (which by default means a country without religion unduly influencing governance).
2. A stable, technologically advanced, and commercially viable internet infrastructure.
3. A population with sufficient resources of progressive, liberal, citizens from which to draw modelling talent for the long term.
4. Legal protections for the business to protect their surprisingly large investment.
The only countries which meet all of those criteria are western countries, ie, the USA, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
Countries in South America have the infrastructure, but not the progressive citizens or legislative climate. (Thanks to the huge influence of the Catholic church)
Infrastructure is also now available in a limited way in the Middle East and most parts of Asia, but again, religion in government means that porn is generally illegal.
The former soviet union countries, and china, have the population of ex-communist, not very religious, people, but mostly dont have the infrastructure widely or affordably available. And more importantly dont have the intellectual property protections required for a business to succeed. Porn is legal in some of them, highly illegal in others, but nobody is going to spend large sums of money building a professional, long term, website if they cannot protect it through copyright and clear legal rights.
As far as I know, the majority of adult content hosted in places like Russia or China, is generally illegal, high risk, short term, SPAM return type stuff. Or specific local language, local market, officially frowned on but ignored, vanilla porn.
clare, 24 Oct 2005 01:25:17
Manniq wrote: "At base, they seem to be trying to get themselves off their hook saying that even where there is no harm whatsoever, still, the photos may have a corrupting effect".
It's not getting off a hook! It is already accepted that distributing obscene material may have a corrupting effect. That is what the Obscene Publications Act is all about. We don;t challenge that.
Thus, and consistently with the OPA, they say that people who distribute even pseudo-images may be causing harm in the form of corruption of the morals of others. No big deal.
The whole point of this consultation is to make "Possession" rather than distribution, into an offence. The government claims that "possession" itself is complicity in the harm caused, even where the image is a pseudo-image. On this critical issue, the SAP say that no harm is actually caused by possessing a pseudo-image.
Translate "pseduo-image" into "fantasy image" or "image created without inflicting harm" or "image created without abuse or exploitation", and you have the SAP saying that possession of these images does not cause harm.
The important point is that the Government wants to elide ideas about "harm" with bad taste and dubious morals. The SAP is saying "No, you can only punish people who are responsible for actual harm, not dubious morals. Unless harm was caused in making the image, punishment is not appropriate"
It might seem blindingly obvious to most of us, but apparantly not to the government. Here is a government advisory panel who has consulted with all the main players, saying the same as us.
Because of this I prefer to applaud them, quote them, kneel at their feet, and quote them. Not rubbish them for gross inconsistencies.
Author wrote:
"On the whole, the paper seems reasonable. At least, it is reasonable in respect of how it feels sentences should be set - and maybe this reasonableness is why it manages to get away with a number of pretty gross assertions or inconsistencies when it comes to dealing with 'facts' and also points of principle.
> First, it seems to me that it has real difficulties with the concept of a pseudo-photograph...and this is a difficulty that is going to become worse, rather than better as time goes by.
> I would agree that ANYTHING that involves a real child has some capacity for harm, even if it comes back to the child at a much later stage in life. So using children's head s on adult bodies is a no-no. But of course, morphing and pseudo-technology has moved a long way.
> Does the Act cover illustration? WHat happens where an illustration is made to take on photographic qualities? Or where a photograph has been solarised and then had tone taken out and used as a guide to illustration?
> I suspect these are the sort of debates that come out under copyright law with respect to whether the work is different or substantially the same as the original. Given the current proposals use the weasel word 'realistic', I think this is an area we need to understand fully. At base, they seem to be trying to get themselves off their hook saying that even where there is no harm whatsoever, still, the photos may have a corrupting effect.
> This is the second area of difficulty. As you yourself quote: "Possession itself cannot be taken as an indication that the defendant is likely to commit an (other) crime."
> So in what way is 'corruption' deemed to happen, given that they also suggest that where an individual does not seek out such images, they would not be guilty of an offence?
> You see them as placing 'thought crime' at the low end of the spectrum. I think they have impaled themselves logically here. You can't commit the crime unless you already have intent - unless you are already corrupt to some degree - but you will be punished because you have downloaded or possess material that corrupts you.
> You extracted the conclusion that: "The fact that both fantasy images and real images have an equal tendency to corrupt, was only relevant to distribution cases. I.e. cases that already covered by the OPA for offences within the UK."
> I can see where you got that but actually, I think they contradict this (as above).
> In terms of facts, there is a lot of stuff about how the internet makes images more available 'by accident'. And how the internet is fuelling demand. If you would like, I will try and lay my hands on a piece that I read recently that gave a very high proportion of internet child porn as being 20 to 30 years old. In other words, the burgeoning trade is more myth than is claimed.
> If anything, the culprit is not so much the internet, as cheap availability of home video, digital recorders, etc.
> And that last is a serious point: we suspect a lot of material that may come within the remit of the government proposal will include home-made stuff between consenting couples. On occasion, stuff not even published to the internet, but kept for home viewing. It may be that the internet is actually the wrong target, as far as the government's intention is concerned.
> On your tail-end quotes:
> > "We were referred to evidence that child abusers commonly use and are influenced by pornography. An offender convicted only of *possessing* child pornography clearly cannot be sentenced on the basis that is an actual or potential child abuser, but those who produce or distribute material do have a more direct responsibility for its eventual use, as well as encouraging further production. We concluded that sentencing levels for those convicted of the more serious offences of making, showing or distributing images of children should reflect that responsibility."
> This bit, I think, does not make sense, taken with the rest of the piece. They do believe there is evidence that porn influences. This underlying belief appears elsewhere in wording about 'corrupts'. (see below)
> "We accept, however, that a pseudo-photograph and a real photograph may have an equally corrupting effect on the viewer..."
> Regards,
> M
Thunder, 24 Oct 2005 01:30:13
In message <012401c5d7f7$18b6e320$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
writes
>brilliant, if you can - but a lot of people seem to be running scared.
I have Midori's private email address if you want her approached and
people decide what I should ask her
--
^Thunder^
demolitionred, 24 Oct 2005 08:06:44
I have already tried to contact Midori. I will try through another avenue.
Roel, can you try her and Jay for us?
thanks
demolitionred, 24 Oct 2005 08:07:33
I think someone should get in touch with insex.com and from other uS organisations fighting proposed legislation over there.
Thunder, 24 Oct 2005 08:52:30
In message
<3164957.1130137602529.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
demolitionred@yahoo.com writes
>
>
>
>
>I have already tried to contact Midori. I will try through another avenue.
>
>
>Roel, can you try her and Jay for us?
>
>thanks
>
As by this and other posts you obviously don't want my involvement Dem
Red I'll leave you to it and give up on Backlash
--
^Thunder^
demolitionred, 24 Oct 2005 09:05:03
I answer these things quickly when I get to the office in the morning. If I have missed something or caused offence I'm sorry.
why would I not want you involved?
you're a dynamo that has helped hugely with Unfettered and also is well known for getting busy elsewhere.
and its you whether you want to be involved anyway.
clare, 24 Oct 2005 09:21:49
Hi
I just saw this. That's great. I don't know her and have never seen one of her demos. The question is, would Midori be a good person to write formal piece on the effect of the american regulation on the the porn industry, or would somebody else be better for that of thing. Roel suggseted Jay Wiseman, who apparantly has just finished a law degree. I'm trying to get a feel for who I should write to/who should be written to.
The IWF says that 60% of the material it investigates for obscenity originates in America. The purpose of the document is to show how heavily regulated the American porn industry is, and that the risk of actual harm in the production of images is negligble. I wanted a piece that describes the practical effect, rather than simply describing the regulatory regiem.
I would hope it would be annexed to some of the submissions to the consultation (assuming people would wants it)and I would like to annex it to my letter to Liberty and Justice. Would also be useful in relation to Amnesty.
Do you think Midori or Jay would be better and/or more willing for this purpose? Or anyone else? What do you think?
My feeling is that it would be better from someone like Jay or Midori than from the owners of Insex
Regards
Clare
Author wrote:
> In message <012401c5d7f7$18b6e320$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
> writes
> >brilliant, if you can - but a lot of people seem to be running scared.
> I have Midori's private email address if you want her approached and
> people decide what I should ask her
> --
> ^Thunder^
Roel, 24 Oct 2005 09:25:02
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> Why do you think other countries would most likely be western
> nations, and if so, which ones?
>
> Does anyone (Roel?) know what the regulatory regime covers the
> production of pornographic material in Holland or Germany?
Actually I don't. I'm not a porn-producer and I'm not a lawyer. Anyone
considering moving his or hers website to here should seek
*professional* legal assistance. That said, I do have a basic knowledge
of my country's legal system.
As far as I know, there's only a few explicit crimes concerning porn
mentioned in our criminal law.
- It is illegal to show pictures that might be considered harmfull to
any minors (<18). So don't show porn to kids.
- It is illegal to produce or own erotic pictures depicting minors (<18)
including "virtual childporn" (that is, if it looks like younger than
18, you've got a problem too).
Thus I *assume* that with the requirement of a model release, there's a
requirement to record the age of the model. I also suppose a "If you're
not 18 go to disney.com" page might also be a good idea.
That's about it as far as criminal law and porn is concerned. Of course
there are other crimes specified. "Bestiality" is not a crime, "animal
abuse" is, so if brought to court it would depend on the question if
harm was done to the animal. BDSM as such is not a crime, but inflicting
bodily harm can be. Thus, there is some shadowzone open for
interpretation, I guess. I don't see any problem with such issues as the
picture is enacted though.
Also, our minister has still not answered parliamentary questions on
introducing a law as proposed in the UK, which might totally change the
situation.
Roel
Roel, 24 Oct 2005 09:36:28
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
> Do you think Midori or Jay would be better and/or more willing for
> this purpose? Or anyone else? What do you think?
Jay's currently campaigning the bdsm-legal-lists raising knowldege of
"jury nullification" for if cases there get to court. I think he's
interested in and concerned about developments in porn regulations, and
would imho be a good choice if you want to consult someone in the US.
Roel
Amelie, 24 Oct 2005 11:15:36
the proposed new .xxx domain will be a high-priced specialist porn ISP and
profits are intended to fund IWF and other watchdogs to discourage any of us
from doing our own (unpaid and unregulated) thing.
http://vnuuk.typepad.com/itweek_letters/2005/09/domain_will_hel.html
Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"guilty^" , 24 Oct 2005 11:15:36
To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:24 AM
> pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Why do you think other countries would most likely be western
>> nations, and if so, which ones?
>>
>> Does anyone (Roel?) know what the regulatory regime covers the
>> production of pornographic material in Holland or Germany?
>
> Actually I don't. I'm not a porn-producer and I'm not a lawyer. Anyone
> considering moving his or hers website to here should seek
> *professional* legal assistance. That said, I do have a basic knowledge
> of my country's legal system.
>
> As far as I know, there's only a few explicit crimes concerning porn
> mentioned in our criminal law.
>
> - It is illegal to show pictures that might be considered harmfull to
> any minors (<18). So don't show porn to kids.
> - It is illegal to produce or own erotic pictures depicting minors (<18)
> including "virtual childporn" (that is, if it looks like younger than
> 18, you've got a problem too).
>
> Thus I *assume* that with the requirement of a model release, there's a
> requirement to record the age of the model. I also suppose a "If you're
> not 18 go to disney.com" page might also be a good idea.
>
> That's about it as far as criminal law and porn is concerned. Of course
> there are other crimes specified. "Bestiality" is not a crime, "animal
> abuse" is, so if brought to court it would depend on the question if
> harm was done to the animal. BDSM as such is not a crime, but inflicting
> bodily harm can be. Thus, there is some shadowzone open for
> interpretation, I guess. I don't see any problem with such issues as the
> picture is enacted though.
>
> Also, our minister has still not answered parliamentary questions on
> introducing a law as proposed in the UK, which might totally change the
> situation.
>
> Roel
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2260
>
Amelie, 24 Oct 2005 11:22:41
gives an opening for a defence of govt perspective - regulated industry
causes no harm, amateur play does - regulated industry is entertainment,
amateur play is sexual violence. Amelie
----- Original Message -----
To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:19 AM
> Hi
>
> I just saw this. That's great. I don't know her and have never seen one
> of her demos. The question is, would Midori be a good person to write
> formal piece on the effect of the american regulation on the the porn
> industry, or would somebody else be better for that of thing. Roel
> suggseted Jay Wiseman, who apparantly has just finished a law degree. I'm
> trying to get a feel for who I should write to/who should be written to.
>
> The IWF says that 60% of the material it investigates for obscenity
> originates in America. The purpose of the document is to show how heavily
> regulated the American porn industry is, and that the risk of actual harm
> in the production of images is negligble. I wanted a piece that describes
> the practical effect, rather than simply describing the regulatory regiem.
>
> I would hope it would be annexed to some of the submissions to the
> consultation (assuming people would wants it)and I would like to annex it
> to my letter to Liberty and Justice. Would also be useful in relation to
> Amnesty.
>
> Do you think Midori or Jay would be better and/or more willing for this
> purpose? Or anyone else? What do you think?
>
> My feeling is that it would be better from someone like Jay or Midori than
> from the owners of Insex
>
> Regards
>
> Clare
> Author wrote:
>> In message <012401c5d7f7$18b6e320$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
>> writes
>> >brilliant, if you can - but a lot of people seem to be running scared.
>> I have Midori's private email address if you want her approached and
>> people decide what I should ask her
>> --
>> ^Thunder^
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2259
>
John Thow, 24 Oct 2005 11:23:35
>
> But even the IWF's own figures agree that the vast majority, 81%, of material they have recieved complaints about was hosted in the USA.
>
Astonishingly they claim that 50% of the child pornography sites were
hosted in the USA. What does that say about the effectiveness of law
enforcement in controlling this problem whilst they waste millions
chasing the viewers.
JT
John Thow, 24 Oct 2005 12:27:18
From uk.legal on 'indecent images':
"I'm confused.
A photo processor makes private copies of family photographs and takes
them home. He is arrested and convicted - but what for?
The prosecutor says, "Most of the photographs appeared to be
photographs of children either in paddling pools or in their homes or
on holiday and could not be regarded as indecent on any scale. What is
of concern is that the defendant wanted them."
The judge says, "These pictures are quite innocuous if being looked at
by friends and family of those children, but nevertheless they are
indecent."
English law doesn't allow a picture to be classed as indecent on the
basis of the context in which it is photographed or viewed, so how was
the defendant persuaded to admit to "making indecent photographs of
children"?
What's going on here? Are prosecutors and judges making up the law as
they go along?
Full story:
=======================================
Photo worker stashed kids' snaps
Sunderland Echo, UK: 22 October 2005
http://www.sunderlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1107&ArticleID=1230353
[ http://tinyurl.com/c3se8 ]
A SICK photo shop worker who took home 162 intimate pictures of
children has walked free from court.
Loner Richard Goundry developed pictures of youngsters in paddling
pools, on holiday and at play and partially dressed - then copied them
and hid them in his home.
The 24-year-old, who worked at Klick photo store in Waterloo Place,
Sunderland, had written the children's names, addresses and telephone
numbers on the back of the prints.
Goundry was collared when a fellow worker spotted him scanning
pictures and putting them in an envelope when the shop was not even
open.
Staff alerted police, who found the pictures stashed inside the arm of
a chair at his home in James Street North, Murton.
A judge at Newcastle Crown Court said Goundry had an "unhealthy
interest in very young children" - but allowed him back on the
streets.
He admitted five charges of making indecent photographs of children
relating to nine indecent pictures.
The parents of all the children involved have been informed.
Robin Patton, prosecuting, said: "Most of the photographs appeared to
be photographs of children either in paddling pools or in their homes
or on holiday and could not be regarded as indecent on any scale.
"What is of concern is that the defendant wanted them."
After his arrest Goundry, who has been cautioned in the past for
possessing an indecent image of a child, immediately confessed he had
a "social problem" and spent all his time either at work or at home.
Judge Beatrice Bolton sentenced him to a community rehabilitation
order for three years with a condition that he must participate in a
sex offenders' programme.
He was also made the subject of a sexual offences prevention order for
five years, which prevents him working in any position in the
photographic industry which may lead to him having access to images of
children.
He must also sign the Sex Offenders' Register for five years and pay
£500 costs.
The judge told him: "These pictures are quite innocuous if being
looked at by friends and family of those children, but nevertheless
they are indecent.
"It is quite clear that at the moment you appear to have an unhealthy
interest in very young children."
A spokesperson from Klick Photopoint said: "As a company we take the
privacy of our customers extremely seriously and have procedures in
place to protect that right.
"It was the vigilance of our staff and their compliance with these
procedures that led to this particular individual being identified and
prompt action being taken.
"We can confirm this person is no longer employed by the company and
our primary concern at this time is for those involved and our staff,
who are receiving our full support."
* Did Goundry take photos of your children home? Contact the Echo
newsdesk on 501 7208.
John Thow wrote:
>>
>> But even the IWF's own figures agree that the vast majority, 81%, of
>> material they have recieved complaints about was hosted in the USA.
>>
> Astonishingly they claim that 50% of the child pornography sites were
> hosted in the USA. What does that say about the effectiveness of law
> enforcement in controlling this problem whilst they waste millions
> chasing the viewers.
>
> JT
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2282
zak, 24 Oct 2005 17:43:09
Original Message:
-----------------
^Thunder^ kinkfest@ukessex.org.uk, 24 Oct 2005 17:43:09
In message
<3164957.1130137602529.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
demolitionred@yahoo.com writes
>
>
>
>
>I have already tried to contact Midori. I will try through another avenue.
>
>
>Roel, can you try her and Jay for us?
>
>thanks
>
As by this and other posts you obviously don't want my involvement Dem
Red I'll leave you to it and give up on Backlash
--
^Thunder^
Oh, deary, deary me. Blood sugar dropped? Haemorrhoids hurting? Have a
lemsip and a wank
or somtheing....
zj
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
clare, 24 Oct 2005 17:46:47
Could you do us all a favour and stop these gratuitous insults on the public boards? Please.
It can only drive people away from the group.
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: ^Thunder^ kinkfest@ukessex.org.uk, 24 Oct 2005 17:46:47
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
> In message
> <3164957.1130137602529.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
> demolitionred@yahoo.com writes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >I have already tried to contact Midori. I will try through another avenue.
> >
> >
> >Roel, can you try her and Jay for us?
> >
> >thanks
> >
> As by this and other posts you obviously don't want my involvement Dem
> Red I'll leave you to it and give up on Backlash
> --
> ^Thunder^
> Oh, deary, deary me. Blood sugar dropped? Haemorrhoids hurting? Have a
> lemsip and a wank
> or somtheing....
> zj
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Thunder, 24 Oct 2005 19:00:26
In message
<4259830.1130141978639.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com writes
>Hi
>
>I just saw this. That's great. I don't know her and have never seen
>one of her demos. The question is, would Midori be a good person to
>write formal piece on the effect of the american regulation on the the
>porn industry,
Having had, in the past, extensive correspondence with her I've just
emailed her.
--
^Thunder^
Thunder, 24 Oct 2005 19:00:26
In message
<4259830.1130141978639.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com writes
>Hi
>
>I just saw this. That's great. I don't know her and have never seen
>one of her demos. The question is, would Midori be a good person to
>write formal piece on the effect of the american regulation on the the
>porn industry,
Having had, in the past, extensive correspondence with her I've just
emailed her.
--
^Thunder^
Thunder, 24 Oct 2005 19:14:47
In message <380-2200510124164210759@M2W054.mail2web.com>,
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" writes
>Oh, deary, deary me. Blood sugar dropped? Haemorrhoids hurting? Have a
>lemsip and a wank
>or somtheing....
>
>zj
And who gave you exclusive rights to get pissed off with someone?
;)
--
^Thunder^
Graham Marsden, 24 Oct 2005 19:58:33
John Thow wrote:
> A photo processor makes private copies of family photographs and takes
> them home. He is arrested and convicted - but what for?
I would have thought copyright theft would be the only real applicable
charge, but the double standards that seemed to be used instead are just
baffling.
> The judge says, "These pictures are quite innocuous if being looked at
> by friends and family of those children, but nevertheless they are
> indecent."
In which case the friends and family (and the court!) should also be
prosecuted!
Cheers,
Graham.
John Thow, 24 Oct 2005 20:49:24
graham wrote:
> I would have thought copyright theft would be the only real applicable
> charge, but the double standards that seemed to be used instead are just
> baffling.
Indeed,
Next time you are at the swimming pool, make sure you do not look at any
"semi-naked boys":
"The 58-year-old had faced jail after admitting to owning and
distributing the pictures at Glasgow Sheriff Court last month.
But when he returned for sentence today, Sheriff Ian Peebles gave him
three years' probation and ordered him to be put on the sex offenders'
register for five years......
Officers raided his house and discovered pictures of young boys,
clad only in swimming trunks, which had been downloaded from websites."
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5044863.shtml
Graham Marsden, 24 Oct 2005 21:48:09
John Thow wrote:
>> the double standards that seemed to be used instead are just baffling.
> Next time you are at the swimming pool, make sure you do not look at any
> "semi-naked boys":
Excellent advice, I most certainly shall not.
I'll make sure the only semi-naked bodies I look at will be female...
Err... ah...!
Cheers,
Graham.
zak, 24 Oct 2005 21:50:38
Original Message:
-----------------
^Thunder^ kinkfest@ukessex.org.uk, 24 Oct 2005 21:50:38
In message <380-2200510124164210759@M2W054.mail2web.com>,
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" writes
>Oh, deary, deary me. Blood sugar dropped? Haemorrhoids hurting? Have a
>lemsip and a wank
>or somtheing....
>
>zj
And who gave you exclusive rights to get pissed off with someone?
;)
--
^Thunder^
Darwin.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Paul C. Dickie, 25 Oct 2005 08:02:20
In message <5667278.1130172404346.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Oh, deary, deary me. Blood sugar dropped? Haemorrhoids hurting? Have a
>> lemsip and a wank
>> or somtheing....
>> zj
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Could you do us all a favour and stop these gratuitous insults on the public
>boards? Please.
>
>It can only drive people away from the group.
I thought it was rather curious that "Haemorrhoids" was correctly spelt,
whereas "something" was not...
Perhaps the former was rather more on the author's mind? o-)
--
< Paul >
Amelie, 25 Oct 2005 12:14:55
Someone with a terrible mind is attributing desires to others that he
probably has to suppress in himself.
I can see nothing wrong with admiring beauty, yearning for a life we never
had, or even wanking over it. It is like picking your nose, no-one wants
to admit to it, no-one wants to watch someone else do it - but we are all
human with failings and we have probably all done it at some time, and got a
sort of satisfaction from it - it does not need a government watch dog to
make us feel quilty or to stop us for our own good.... Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"John Thow" , 25 Oct 2005 12:14:55
To:
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 8:50 PM
> graham wrote:
>> I would have thought copyright theft would be the only real applicable
>> charge, but the double standards that seemed to be used instead are just
>> baffling.
>
> Indeed,
> Next time you are at the swimming pool, make sure you do not look at any
> "semi-naked boys":
>
> "The 58-year-old had faced jail after admitting to owning and
> distributing the pictures at Glasgow Sheriff Court last month.
>
> But when he returned for sentence today, Sheriff Ian Peebles gave him
> three years' probation and ordered him to be put on the sex offenders'
> register for five years......
> Officers raided his house and discovered pictures of young boys,
>
> clad only in swimming trunks, which had been downloaded from websites."
>
>
> http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/print/news/5044863.shtml
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2374
>
>
Thunder, 25 Oct 2005 22:57:56
In message <69PhlFEA$RXDFw6d@ukessex.org.uk>, ^Thunder^
writes
>In message
><4259830.1130141978639.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
>pearl_maude1@hotmail.com writes
>>Hi
>>
>>I just saw this. That's great. I don't know her and have never seen
>>one of her demos. The question is, would Midori be a good person to
>>write formal piece on the effect of the american regulation on the the
>>porn industry,
>
>Having had, in the past, extensive correspondence with her I've just
>emailed her.
>
>--
>^Thunder^
>
>
Midori has said she has no problems with postings relating to Backlash
being posted to her Yahoo group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/divamidori/
So I'm joining it.
--
^Thunder^
«No Name Set», 27 Oct 2005 18:28:27
Next time I get a mag with the ads in, I'll try and do a count up.
As a matter of interest:
1. how do they determine "US", "China" etc hosted?
2. what proportion of porn pics/vids posted on a site that they
class as "US" actually follow the US regulations?
I also would be interested in hearing what effect the regulatory
regime actually has on real H&S, as distinct from the typea dn
quantities of paperwork produced.
--
Rosemary
clare, 28 Oct 2005 14:07:34
I've written to Jay asking for a deposition or to reccomend someone else if he is too busy.
Author wrote:
> Jay's currently campaigning the bdsm-legal-lists raising knowldege of
> "jury nullification" for if cases there get to court. I think he's
> interested in and concerned about developments in porn regulations, and
> would imho be a good choice if you want to consult someone in the US.
> Roel
Amelie, 28 Oct 2005 20:58:59
my saga of the porn download ended with the police phoning back to say that
particular pic had been reported so many times that IWF were snowed under.
But they still told me to report the affair to them to protect myself. IWF
have not acknowledged either of my emails. The police did not want to know
about the Hong-cong server owner contact I had made with a named person
eager to help the lawmen track down the offenders, but warned me I could be
prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"Rosemary" , 28 Oct 2005 20:58:59
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:35 PM
> av8r0344@hotmail.com writes:
> As far as I know, the majority of adult content hosted in places like
> Russia or China, is generally illegal, high risk, short term, SPAM return
> type stuff.
> Or specific local language, local market, officially frowned on but
> ignored, vanilla porn.
> Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
> Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
> Precedence: bulk
> X-No-Archive: yes
> List-Post:
> List-Help:
> List-Unsubscribe:
> List-Subscribe:
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Next time I get a mag with the ads in, I'll try and do a count up.
>
>
> As a matter of interest:
>
> 1. how do they determine "US", "China" etc hosted?
>
> 2. what proportion of porn pics/vids posted on a site that they
> class as "US" actually follow the US regulations?
>
> I also would be interested in hearing what effect the regulatory
> regime actually has on real H&S, as distinct from the typea dn
> quantities of paperwork produced.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rosemary
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2553
>
goodghirl, 28 Oct 2005 21:05:24
for one image?? OMG
Amelie wrote: they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
John Thow, 28 Oct 2005 21:28:08
goodghirl wrote:
> for one image?? OMG
>
> Amelie wrote: they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
>
Idiots. Shows just how ridiculous this aspect of the law has become, and
hoew much worse it could be if extended to violent porn.
JT
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
zak, 28 Oct 2005 22:23:46
Just shows what a bunch of fucking idiots they are, really... Amelie, keep
written
records of your interaction with these dipstick plods, keep it in a safe
place and, should
you ever get hauled up for having this image in your computer's waste bin,
you'llhave
evidence of what action you took at the time which would mean any half-way
decent lawyer
could get any case thrown out of court if it ever got that far.
zjk
Original Message:
-----------------
goodghirl goodghirl@btinternet.com, 28 Oct 2005 22:23:46
for one image?? OMG
Amelie wrote: they advised me to
destroy the hard
disc! Amel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Paul Tavener, 28 Oct 2005 23:01:15
Utterly outrageous.
It only goes to show how paranoid and idiotic things have become. If this sort of thing was extended to violent porn it would make some parts of the Internet a virtual nogo area.
Might be worth mentioning this in the consultation response.
Author wrote:
> my saga of the porn download ended with the police phoning back to say that
> particular pic had been reported so many times that IWF were snowed under.
> But they still told me to report the affair to them to protect myself. IWF
> have not acknowledged either of my emails. The police did not want to know
> about the Hong-cong server owner contact I had made with a named person
> eager to help the lawmen track down the offenders, but warned me I could be
> prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
> previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
> destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----
: "Rosemary" , 28 Oct 2005 23:01:15
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
> > av8r0344@hotmail.com writes:
> > As far as I know, the majority of adult content hosted in places like
> > Russia or China, is generally illegal, high risk, short term, SPAM return
> > type stuff.
> > Or specific local language, local market, officially frowned on but
> > ignored, vanilla porn.
> > Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
> > Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
> > Precedence: bulk
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> > List-Post:
> > List-Help:
> > List-Unsubscribe:
> > List-Subscribe:
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Next time I get a mag with the ads in, I'll try and do a count up.
> >
> >
> > As a matter of interest:
> >
> > 1. how do they determine "US", "China" etc hosted?
> >
> > 2. what proportion of porn pics/vids posted on a site that they
> > class as "US" actually follow the US regulations?
> >
> > I also would be interested in hearing what effect the regulatory
> > regime actually has on real H&S, as distinct from the typea dn
> > quantities of paperwork produced.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rosemary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2553
> >
Graham Marsden, 28 Oct 2005 23:16:51
Amelie wrote:
> prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
> previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
> destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc!
Get them to put that in writing!
It will be a useful piece of evidence about how ridiculous things have
now become and that the new proposed laws would be totally insane!
Cheers,
Graham.
Amelie, 29 Oct 2005 12:09:43
The police would not put their advice in writing due to "pressure of work"
but say they phoned me merely out of courtesy, to give me a number to quote
and advise on how best to protect myself if at any time someone should
decide to take it further. Still, Silver was here at the time and can
confirm what was said.
Disquietingly, I also got a message from a group attaching and embedding an
extreme bdsm torture picture (admittedly of a male sub and submitted proudly
by the sub himself) but that also had secreted itself somewhere on my pc.
When I did a thorough search I found all sorts of stuff I had never seen
before, videos of bestiality included. So I have now made most of my groups
"view website only" but anything I see there would still be downloaded to be
opened, surely? Does anyone know a good security eraser programme?
To:
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:17 PM
>
>
> Amelie wrote:
>
>> prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
>> previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
>> destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc!
>
> Get them to put that in writing!
>
> It will be a useful piece of evidence about how ridiculous things have
> now become and that the new proposed laws would be totally insane!
>
> Cheers,
> Graham.
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2581
>
>
Thunder, 29 Oct 2005 12:50:48
In message <005f01c5dc79$318a2de0$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
writes
>Disquietingly, I also got a message from a group attaching and embedding an
>extreme bdsm torture picture (admittedly of a male sub and submitted proudly
>by the sub himself) but that also had secreted itself somewhere on my pc.
>When I did a thorough search I found all sorts of stuff I had never seen
>before, videos of bestiality included. So I have now made most of my groups
>"view website only" but anything I see there would still be downloaded to be
>opened, surely? Does anyone know a good security eraser programme?
I use 2 (for different reasons)
PGP which is basically an encryption program can also erase as can
Norton Utilities
Basically both programs write a series of X's and O's over all unused
space on your hard disc (including space not being used in each
cluster).
The more you do it the more chances all traces of underlying data is
made unreadable (If the security forces are determined then with enough
effort they MIGHT find underlying traces of magnetism on any part of
your PC but I doubt if then "normal" Police would want to spend
thousands of pounds in an attempt to see what you have on your computer.
BTW back to PGP , part of my hard disc is actually encrypted and without
my "key" it is virtually unbreakable. Not that there is anything there
other than certain things I don't want someone to see if I ever take my
PC in for repair etc.
--
^Thunder^
Paul C. Dickie, 29 Oct 2005 13:29:04
In message <2480856.1130536871115.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>Utterly outrageous.
>
>It only goes to show how paranoid and idiotic things have become. If this sort
>of thing was extended to violent porn it would make some parts of the Internet a
>virtual nogo area.
>
>Might be worth mentioning this in the consultation response.
Perhaps that is the idea behind this patent nonsense?
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 29 Oct 2005 13:39:07
Amelie wrote:
> The police would not put their advice in writing due to "pressure of work"
Yeah, right! Or maybe because they've realised how stupid it was...!
> but say they phoned me merely out of courtesy, to give me a number to quote
> and advise on how best to protect myself if at any time someone should
> decide to take it further.
Hmm, wouldn't that be "destroying evidence"...?!
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 29 Oct 2005 13:47:34
^Thunder^ wrote:
> BTW back to PGP , part of my hard disc is actually encrypted and without
> my "key" it is virtually unbreakable.
Oddly, the current state of UK Criminal Law apparently does not oblige a
user to reveal the password or key for encrypted information, but under
UK *civil* law, "where a person served with a requirement to produce
documents for the courts has to produce them in a form such that they
are intelligible. Under civil law, therefore, the defendant cannot
simply refuse to decrypt files; they have to reveal or use the
pass-phrase, or face fines for contempt."
http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39153438,00.htm
> Not that there is anything there other than certain things I don't
> want someone to see if I ever take my PC in for repair etc.
Whereas if I need my PC fixed, I sort it myself or get help from a
couple of friends who won't charge silly money to fix minor problems :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
samantha, 29 Oct 2005 13:56:01
There is not very much on there where the police cannot see some sort of
data. The first person who built a PC for me works for the National Crime
Squad in the computing department and he has been involved in a high number
of cases involving hidden/changes documents. If the police want to look at
your PC under any suspicions then they will go over it with a fine
toothcomb.... whether they are normal police or not... they have wanted to
look at the PC for a reason x
Main thing is if you have reported anything viewed of downloaded
accidentally keep a record of the fact you have reported it using times and
so on x
jenis x
^Thunder^ , 29 Oct 2005 13:56:01
>Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
>
>In message <005f01c5dc79$318a2de0$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
> writes
>
>>Disquietingly, I also got a message from a group attaching and embedding
>>an
>>extreme bdsm torture picture (admittedly of a male sub and submitted
>>proudly
>>by the sub himself) but that also had secreted itself somewhere on my pc.
>>When I did a thorough search I found all sorts of stuff I had never seen
>>before, videos of bestiality included. So I have now made most of my
>>groups
>>"view website only" but anything I see there would still be downloaded to
>>be
>>opened, surely? Does anyone know a good security eraser programme?
>
>I use 2 (for different reasons)
>
>PGP which is basically an encryption program can also erase as can
>Norton Utilities
>
>Basically both programs write a series of X's and O's over all unused
>space on your hard disc (including space not being used in each
>cluster).
>
>The more you do it the more chances all traces of underlying data is
>made unreadable (If the security forces are determined then with enough
>effort they MIGHT find underlying traces of magnetism on any part of
>your PC but I doubt if then "normal" Police would want to spend
>thousands of pounds in an attempt to see what you have on your computer.
>
>BTW back to PGP , part of my hard disc is actually encrypted and without
>my "key" it is virtually unbreakable. Not that there is anything there
>other than certain things I don't want someone to see if I ever take my
>PC in for repair etc.
>
>--
>^Thunder^
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
>To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
>Report abuse
>http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2586
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here.
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
«No Name Set», 29 Oct 2005 23:14:19
Stuff here for the bounce mailer to eat......
graham writes:
Whereas if I need my PC fixed, I sort it myself or get help from a
couple of friends who won't charge silly money to fix minor problems :-)
Do you provide your services to others? - maybe a fundraiser
here???
- I thought I was going to need someone like you the other day.
I tripped over the lead of my laptop and pulled it off the
kitchen table. Literally, a computer crash. Goodness only
knows where I'd have found a shop willing to fix it....
NOTE: I think it is now working again, but the mailbox got
screwed up and I've probably lost a whole batch of mails. If
anyone tried to mail and ask me anything, please accept
apologies for lack of answer and try again.
--
Rosemary
«No Name Set», 29 Oct 2005 23:14:25
SOunds about par for the course for the police - most of them
don't understand IT, or IT crime related issues, and what they
don't know about, they don't care about and aren't interested in
investigating.
Get some of those utility suite programmes to scrub the thing
off the disk. Destroy the whole disk for one piece of spam?? -
my, that would be a good money-spinner for the hard disk
manufacturers, wouldn't it. Goodness!
Rosemary
PS: the bit that got eaten by the mailer from the email that
Amelie quoted was to the effect taht a lot of gay male porn
videos these days seem to be Czech.
In message <008901c5dbf9$f3c104e0$6401a8c0@Sylvia> "Amelie" writes:
my saga of the porn download ended with the police phoning back to say that
particular pic had been reported so many times that IWF were snowed under.
But they still told me to report the affair to them to protect myself. IWF
have not acknowledged either of my emails. The police did not want to know
about the Hong-cong server owner contact I had made with a named person
eager to help the lawmen track down the offenders, but warned me I could be
prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
----- Original Message -----
: "Rosemary" , 29 Oct 2005 23:14:25
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
> av8r0344@hotmail.com writes:
> As far as I know, the majority of adult content hosted in places like
> Russia or China, is generally illegal, high risk, short term, SPAM return
> type stuff.
> Or specific local language, local market, officially frowned on but
> ignored, vanilla porn.
> Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
> Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
> Precedence: bulk
> X-No-Archive: yes
> List-Post:
> List-Help:
> List-Unsubscribe:
> List-Subscribe:
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Next time I get a mag with the ads in, I'll try and do a count up.
>
>
> As a matter of interest:
>
> 1. how do they determine "US", "China" etc hosted?
>
> 2. what proportion of porn pics/vids posted on a site that they
> class as "US" actually follow the US regulations?
>
> I also would be interested in hearing what effect the regulatory
> regime actually has on real H&S, as distinct from the typea dn
> quantities of paperwork produced.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rosemary
>
>
--
Rosemary
Graham Marsden, 29 Oct 2005 23:36:26
Rosemary wrote:
> Whereas if I need my PC fixed, I sort it myself or get help from a
> couple of friends who won't charge silly money to fix minor problems :-)
>
> Do you provide your services to others? - maybe a fundraiser
> here???
Not really a viable option as you'd have to bring them to Portsmouth!
Cheers,
Graham.
Amelie, 30 Oct 2005 16:30:18
I have already deleted it and although in theory there are ways to destroy
remaining traces the erasing untiities I have found only work if you can
actually designate a file to destroy. Any suggestions? Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"Rosemary" , 30 Oct 2005 16:30:18
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:33 PM
> SOunds about par for the course for the police - most of them
> don't understand IT, or IT crime related issues, and what they
> don't know about, they don't care about and aren't interested in
> investigating.
>
> Get some of those utility suite programmes to scrub the thing
> off the disk. Destroy the whole disk for one piece of spam?? -
> my, that would be a good money-spinner for the hard disk
> manufacturers, wouldn't it. Goodness!
>
> Rosemary
>
> PS: the bit that got eaten by the mailer from the email that
> Amelie quoted was to the effect taht a lot of gay male porn
> videos these days seem to be Czech.
>
>
> In message <008901c5dbf9$f3c104e0$6401a8c0@Sylvia> "Amelie" writes:
> my saga of the porn download ended with the police phoning back to say
> that
> particular pic had been reported so many times that IWF were snowed
> under.
> But they still told me to report the affair to them to protect myself.
> IWF
> have not acknowledged either of my emails. The police did not want to
> know
> about the Hong-cong server owner contact I had made with a named person
> eager to help the lawmen track down the offenders, but warned me I could
> be
> prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
> previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
> destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----
m: "Rosemary" , 30 Oct 2005 16:30:18
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
>
>
> > av8r0344@hotmail.com writes:
> > As far as I know, the majority of adult content hosted in places like
> > Russia or China, is generally illegal, high risk, short term, SPAM
> return
> > type stuff.
> > Or specific local language, local market, officially frowned on but
> > ignored, vanilla porn.
> > Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
> > Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
> > Precedence: bulk
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> > List-Post:
> > List-Help:
> > List-Unsubscribe:
> > List-Subscribe:
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Next time I get a mag with the ads in, I'll try and do a count up.
> >
> >
> > As a matter of interest:
> >
> > 1. how do they determine "US", "China" etc hosted?
> >
> > 2. what proportion of porn pics/vids posted on a site that they
> > class as "US" actually follow the US regulations?
> >
> > I also would be interested in hearing what effect the regulatory
> > regime actually has on real H&S, as distinct from the typea dn
> > quantities of paperwork produced.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rosemary
> >
> >
>
> --
> Rosemary
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2625
>
>
Nigel Meek, 30 Oct 2005 16:45:54
Steganos's Internet Trace Destructer (http://www.steganos.com) can either destroy named files or if files have been "deleted" the normal way it can clean the free spaces left by their deletion. Other companies produce similar software I'm sure.
NGM
Author wrote:
> I have already deleted it and although in theory there are ways to destroy
> remaining traces the erasing untiities I have found only work if you can
> actually designate a file to destroy. Any suggestions? Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----
: "Rosemary" , 30 Oct 2005 16:45:54
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2005 6:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
> > SOunds about par for the course for the police - most of them
> > don't understand IT, or IT crime related issues, and what they
> > don't know about, they don't care about and aren't interested in
> > investigating.
> >
> > Get some of those utility suite programmes to scrub the thing
> > off the disk. Destroy the whole disk for one piece of spam?? -
> > my, that would be a good money-spinner for the hard disk
> > manufacturers, wouldn't it. Goodness!
> >
> > Rosemary
> >
> > PS: the bit that got eaten by the mailer from the email that
> > Amelie quoted was to the effect taht a lot of gay male porn
> > videos these days seem to be Czech.
> >
> >
> > In message <008901c5dbf9$f3c104e0$6401a8c0@Sylvia> "Amelie" writes:
> > my saga of the porn download ended with the police phoning back to say
> > that
> > particular pic had been reported so many times that IWF were snowed
> > under.
> > But they still told me to report the affair to them to protect myself.
> > IWF
> > have not acknowledged either of my emails. The police did not want to
> > know
> > about the Hong-cong server owner contact I had made with a named person
> > eager to help the lawmen track down the offenders, but warned me I could
> > be
> > prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
> > previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
> > destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
> > ----- Original Message -----
rom: "Rosemary" , 30 Oct 2005 16:45:54
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
> >
> >
> > > av8r0344@hotmail.com writes:
> > > As far as I know, the majority of adult content hosted in places like
> > > Russia or China, is generally illegal, high risk, short term, SPAM
> > return
> > > type stuff.
> > > Or specific local language, local market, officially frowned on but
> > > ignored, vanilla porn.
> > > Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
> > > Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
> > > Precedence: bulk
> > > X-No-Archive: yes
> > > List-Post:
> > > List-Help:
> > > List-Unsubscribe:
> > > List-Subscribe:
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > Content-Type: text/plain
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > > Next time I get a mag with the ads in, I'll try and do a count up.
> > >
> > >
> > > As a matter of interest:
> > >
> > > 1. how do they determine "US", "China" etc hosted?
> > >
> > > 2. what proportion of porn pics/vids posted on a site that they
> > > class as "US" actually follow the US regulations?
> > >
> > > I also would be interested in hearing what effect the regulatory
> > > regime actually has on real H&S, as distinct from the typea dn
> > > quantities of paperwork produced.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rosemary
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Rosemary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2625
> >
> >
Thunder, 30 Oct 2005 16:55:29
In message <012d01c5dd6f$20a3c800$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
writes
>I have already deleted it and although in theory there are ways to destroy
>remaining traces the erasing untiities I have found only work if you can
>actually designate a file to destroy. Any suggestions? Amelie
Both PGP and Norton Utilities give one the option to "wipe" all free
space clean on a disc as well as , if required, just erasing specific
files.
One has the option of also using what they call "Government Wipe"
which, though it takes forever, actually performs the wipe over and over
again.
--
^Thunder^
Paul Tavener, 30 Oct 2005 20:26:18
It is very difficult to remove every trace of a file. When you use one of these utilities does it clean the whole disk? Or does it just clean the empty spaces? Imagine you have a file you want to remove totaly, but after deleting it the physical space it was recorded on on the disk was then overwritten by another file. In this circumstance all or part of the old file might still be present "under" the new file as the utility will only clean the free space.
If this law does come in I will want to very carefully clean my PC hard drive and also consider how to keep it clean. In the longer term it might be best to use a operating system on some form of replaceable media (if this is possible) In this way a copy could be kept and 100% of the orginal disk could be cleaned to give maximum protection.
Something to be considered in more depth later.
Author wrote:
> In message <012d01c5dd6f$20a3c800$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
> writes
> >I have already deleted it and although in theory there are ways to destroy
> >remaining traces the erasing untiities I have found only work if you can
> >actually designate a file to destroy. Any suggestions? Amelie
> Both PGP and Norton Utilities give one the option to "wipe" all free
> space clean on a disc as well as , if required, just erasing specific
> files.
> One has the option of also using what they call "Government Wipe"
> which, though it takes forever, actually performs the wipe over and over
> again.
> --
> ^Thunder^
Thunder, 30 Oct 2005 22:35:15
In message
<211501.1130703970865.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
admin@ofwatch.org.uk writes
>It is very difficult to remove every trace of a file. When you use one
>of these utilities does it clean the whole disk? Or does it just clean
>the empty spaces? Imagine you have a file you want to remove totaly,
>but after deleting it the physical space it was recorded on on the disk
>was then overwritten by another file. In this circumstance all or part
>of the old file might still be present "under" the new file as the
>utility will only clean the free space.
>
>If this law does come in I will want to very carefully clean my PC hard
>drive and also consider how to keep it clean. In the longer term it
>might be best to use a operating system on some form of replaceable
>media (if this is possible) In this way a copy could be kept and 100%
>of the orginal disk could be cleaned to give maximum protection.
>
>Something to be considered in more depth later.
A "wipe" clears (or rather puts a sequence of X O ) on all unused space
- including, as I said, parts of clusters that may be occupied by used
space.
What it does not do is touch "used space".
It is always possible that a vestige of previous files can remain on
space that is occupied by new files but would need specialised equipment
to find (unlike other space which could reveal its contents by any
simple "unerase program" ) and, as I understand it, unless it is, for
instance, a security matter or a serious crime unlikely to be worth the
specialised knowledge needed to trace what is "background magnetism"
PGP encryption for instance is "unbreakable" and is not liked by the
US/UK security services BUT given enough time and massive computer
resources then millions of possible key combinations could be generated
- at a cost - which would keep MI6/CIA resources occupied for months.
(I could for instance encrypt this posting and I bet no one could
decipher it)
--
^Thunder^
zak, 31 Oct 2005 01:30:30
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 31 Oct 2005 01:30:30
I have already deleted it and although in theory there are ways to destroy
remaining traces the erasing untiities I have found only work if you can
actually designate a file to destroy. Any suggestions? Amelie
----- Original Message -----
Keep any available records of your interaction with the forces of law,
don't set fire to
your computer and don't worry about it any more. XX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 31 Oct 2005 01:42:41
Original Message:
-----------------
admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 31 Oct 2005 01:42:41
It is very difficult to remove every trace of a file. When you use one of
these utilities
does it clean the whole disk? Or does it just clean the empty spaces?
Imagine you have a
file you want to remove totaly, but after deleting it the physical space it
was recorded
on on the disk was then overwritten by another file. In this circumstance
all or part of
the old file might still be present "under" the new file as the utility
will only clean
the free space.
Nooooh, then you have to scrub your whole body with crushed ants and throw
your computer
out of exactlty 27 windows, squealing horribly between each one, then you
have to cut off
your foot and throw it over your right shoulder wile reciting certain
incantations ("Blair
is ight about everything including IRaq andID cards") and then shit your
pants three
times and turn left. Honest. It's the only way to b
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
DAury, 31 Oct 2005 11:57:08
> PGP encryption for instance is "unbreakable" and is not liked by the
> US/UK security services BUT given enough time and massive computer
> resources then millions of possible key combinations could be generated
> - at a cost - which would keep MI6/CIA resources occupied for months.
> (I could for instance encrypt this posting and I bet no one could
> decipher it)
PGP is no protection, under RIPA they will simply ask you for the key,
if you don't comply it's three years clink. So you'd be damned if do
and damned if you don't.
Incidently, the government are now trying to increase this penalty to
five years.
Keith
"The people should not be afraid of the government, governments
should be afraid of the people".
Lothario, 31 Oct 2005 13:42:47
As was pointed out when RIPA was going through, anyone doing serious
crime such as terrorism or international drug trafficking would be
quite happy to do three years' jail for refusing to reveal their key,
rather than surrender it and get 25 years' jail for their other
crimes.
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
John Thow, 31 Oct 2005 13:50:32
Lothario wrote:
> As was pointed out when RIPA was going through, anyone doing serious
> crime such as terrorism or international drug trafficking would be
> quite happy to do three years' jail for refusing to reveal their key,
> rather than surrender it and get 25 years' jail for their other
> crimes.
>
> --
> Lothario.
My understanding is that the 'key disclosure' aspect of the RIPA was
never actually made law. It has been revived as part of the new
anti-terrorism proposals.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Manniq, 31 Oct 2005 17:04:35
A fascinating exchange. Puts into perspective the fact that one of the amends to the law that happened in the last couple of years was that the stricvt position (possession of an image = an offence, no mitigation, no excuses) has been modified to possessing an image where you are clearly doing so to aid the forces of lawn'order IS now an excuse.
How much of an excuse is not clear...though I suspect that the police may have got the strict interpretation of the law wrong in this instance.
The reason this excuse came into law is, if you think about it, fairly obvious: the worst paedophiles in the land, as measured by viewing of illicit material, were the IWF. For a long period, they were uncovered by the law but, of course, the Police and other authorities deemed it not to be in the public interest to prosecute them.
This event also opens up a second interesting line of argument against the proposal - which is that although it is not 'retrospective legislation' as clare rightly pointed out, it does have a degree of retrospecivity to it unlike many other new offences.
For instance, if the government rules a substance illegal, then from the date that law comes onto the books, I would be in trouble. Result: throw substance away before date law happens.
But with illegal images on the internet, there does seem to be the real possibility that they will say a) that if the image is there now, then you are in breach of the act (possession): but if the image HAD BEEN there in the past - and you took steps to delete it - you are still a crim if your steps to delete it were insufficient to outwit the computer forensics they decide to throw at your pc.
As all sorts of people have commented: the ONLY safe way to respond to this law, if you have had any connection with bdsm in the past, is to destroy your hard disk.
That said, it becomes a VERY good argument against the law, since the requirement it places on individuals must be disproportionate or unreasonable? I hope.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> my saga of the porn download ended with the police phoning back to say that
> particular pic had been reported so many times that IWF were snowed under.
> But they still told me to report the affair to them to protect myself. IWF
> have not acknowledged either of my emails. The police did not want to know
> about the Hong-cong server owner contact I had made with a named person
> eager to help the lawmen track down the offenders, but warned me I could be
> prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
> previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
> destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc! Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----
: "Rosemary" , 31 Oct 2005 17:04:35
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 11:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
> > av8r0344@hotmail.com writes:
> > As far as I know, the majority of adult content hosted in places like
> > Russia or China, is generally illegal, high risk, short term, SPAM return
> > type stuff.
> > Or specific local language, local market, officially frowned on but
> > ignored, vanilla porn.
> > Mailing-List: contact backlash-help@smartgroups.com
> > Delivered-To: mailing list backlash
> > Precedence: bulk
> > X-No-Archive: yes
> > List-Post:
> > List-Help:
> > List-Unsubscribe:
> > List-Subscribe:
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > Next time I get a mag with the ads in, I'll try and do a count up.
> >
> >
> > As a matter of interest:
> >
> > 1. how do they determine "US", "China" etc hosted?
> >
> > 2. what proportion of porn pics/vids posted on a site that they
> > class as "US" actually follow the US regulations?
> >
> > I also would be interested in hearing what effect the regulatory
> > regime actually has on real H&S, as distinct from the typea dn
> > quantities of paperwork produced.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rosemary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2553
> >
Manniq, 31 Oct 2005 17:06:20
Difficult. If you annoy them too much, they will proibably pick on you anyway.
However, I would (in your position) escalate my demand that they put it in writing and/or, if that failed, write out a full version of your remembrance of what happened, when, who said what, etc. - get said statement witnessed, and copy it to the most senior bod you can find in the police and ask them to write back if there is any aspect of your statement that they take issue with.
Nope: I am sure that it won't cover you perfectly - but would probably be better than not having such a statement to hand.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> The police would not put their advice in writing due to "pressure of work"
> but say they phoned me merely out of courtesy, to give me a number to quote
> and advise on how best to protect myself if at any time someone should
> decide to take it further. Still, Silver was here at the time and can
> confirm what was said.
> Disquietingly, I also got a message from a group attaching and embedding an
> extreme bdsm torture picture (admittedly of a male sub and submitted proudly
> by the sub himself) but that also had secreted itself somewhere on my pc.
> When I did a thorough search I found all sorts of stuff I had never seen
> before, videos of bestiality included. So I have now made most of my groups
> "view website only" but anything I see there would still be downloaded to be
> opened, surely? Does anyone know a good security eraser programme?
>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: Sentencing Advisory Panel Guidelines
> >
> >
> > Amelie wrote:
> >
> >> prosecuted if I did not now immediately destroy the file (which theyhad
> >> previously asked me to keep. ) Since ordinary deletion does not really
> >> destroy it, they advised me to destroy the hard disc!
> >
> > Get them to put that in writing!
> >
> > It will be a useful piece of evidence about how ridiculous things have
> > now become and that the new proposed laws would be totally insane!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Graham.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2581
> >
> >
Manniq, 31 Oct 2005 17:07:05
RIP, Thunder! (Regulation of Investigatory Powers)
That particular Act means that they can demand the key from you and/or you can go to prison for simply not handing over the key. Though whether they have to claim it is in the interests of National Security, I forget.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> In message <005f01c5dc79$318a2de0$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
> writes
> >Disquietingly, I also got a message from a group attaching and embedding an
> >extreme bdsm torture picture (admittedly of a male sub and submitted proudly
> >by the sub himself) but that also had secreted itself somewhere on my pc.
> >When I did a thorough search I found all sorts of stuff I had never seen
> >before, videos of bestiality included. So I have now made most of my groups
> >"view website only" but anything I see there would still be downloaded to be
> >opened, surely? Does anyone know a good security eraser programme?
> I use 2 (for different reasons)
> PGP which is basically an encryption program can also erase as can
> Norton Utilities
> Basically both programs write a series of X's and O's over all unused
> space on your hard disc (including space not being used in each
> cluster).
> The more you do it the more chances all traces of underlying data is
> made unreadable (If the security forces are determined then with enough
> effort they MIGHT find underlying traces of magnetism on any part of
> your PC but I doubt if then "normal" Police would want to spend
> thousands of pounds in an attempt to see what you have on your computer.
> BTW back to PGP , part of my hard disc is actually encrypted and without
> my "key" it is virtually unbreakable. Not that there is anything there
> other than certain things I don't want someone to see if I ever take my
> PC in for repair etc.
> --
> ^Thunder^
Manniq, 31 Oct 2005 17:08:02
Really? My understanding was that the RIP Act had changed the position somewhat?
But I could well be wrong.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> ^Thunder^ wrote:
> > BTW back to PGP , part of my hard disc is actually encrypted and without
> > my "key" it is virtually unbreakable.
> Oddly, the current state of UK Criminal Law apparently does not oblige a
> user to reveal the password or key for encrypted information, but under
> UK *civil* law, "where a person served with a requirement to produce
> documents for the courts has to produce them in a form such that they
> are intelligible. Under civil law, therefore, the defendant cannot
> simply refuse to decrypt files; they have to reveal or use the
> pass-phrase, or face fines for contempt."
> http://software.silicon.com/security/0,39024655,39153438,00.htm
> > Not that there is anything there other than certain things I don't
> > want someone to see if I ever take my PC in for repair etc.
> Whereas if I need my PC fixed, I sort it myself or get help from a
> couple of friends who won't charge silly money to fix minor problems :-)
> Cheers,
> Graham.
DAury, 31 Oct 2005 20:19:58
> My understanding is that the 'key disclosure' aspect of the RIPA was
> never actually made law. It has been revived as part of the new
> anti-terrorism proposals.
It is law, there's currently a two year penalty which they want to
increase to five, check out:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/0605
5.14-20.html
Keith
DAury, 31 Oct 2005 20:30:11
> It is law, there's currently a two year penalty which they want to
> increase to five, check out:-
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/0605
> 5.14-20.html
Oops! just read more of that link, the increase to five years is only for
"national security" issues, all others stay at two.
So it looks like PGP might get you a one year reduction and a miss
on the sex offenders register. Of course they will keep your data, and
when computing power increases sufficiently to crack PGP in
minutes instead of weeks, you will get done for the violent porn
images as well. Of course by then they will probably have re-
introduced hanging, or at the very least birching - now wouldn't that
be a poetic punishment........
Keith