Resisting the plod

Manniq, 04 Nov 2005 13:59:43

OK, so....for the techies out there.

Is there any way in which one can guarantee that no images end up on the Hard Drive? Perhaps by buying a data stick and setting your cache to drive E: (or equivalent?).

Would Windows allow this?

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> silver says anyone buying a new hard drive will soon get funny looks, like
> buying condoms in a chemists - and we should invest in hard drive
> suppliers.... Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----
: , 04 Nov 2005 13:59:43
> To:
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 11:01 AM
> Subject: [backlash] RE: How many of us are there?
> > You need to be careful how you ask this question.
> >
> > I have been involved in market research in which people have just fibbed
> > about what they do. Norming behaviour. They were asked if they had ever
> > booked a holiday via a particular medium. They all said no.
> >
> > The funny thing was: every individual present had been selected on the
> > basis of that method of holiday booking. Basically, it was embarrassing,
> > and they didn't want to own up to it in public.
> >
> > Same with the bdsm world. If you take the strict extreme porn definition,
> > that probably omits quite a few of us here. I am not a very visual
> > person, preferring my porn in literary form - and then the subjects I opt
> > for are control rather than physical punishment. But if you widen out the
> > definition to the list of material listed yesterday, then you draw the net
> > VERY wide indeed.
> >
> > So what then matters is what question you ask.
> >
> > If you do a 'Sun says survey' along the lines of "Do you believe that
> > perverts should be allowed to look at any images they wish, no matter how
> > sick?" then you will find 99% of society wants this proposal.
> >
> > If you ask people: do you believe that the state should censor images of
> > bondage where there is no image of harm involved and the action takes
> > place between consenting adults, you will get a very different answer.
> >
> > The other statistic that I think you need to hammer - and in this respect,
> > Amelie's case is really vital - is the number of people who could be
> > caught by the proposal.
> >
> > 1. Have you ever looked at any of the following material on your pc?
> > (list as quoted)
> >
> > 2. Are you certain that you have never visited a site from which even
> > one image of the sort listed could have downloaded onto your pc?
> >
> > 3. Have you ever been spammed with an image that is in any of the
> > categories listed?
> >
> > 4. Are you aware that under government proposals, failure to delete any
> > of these images completely could open you to criminal charges and entry on
> > the Sex Offendrs' Register?
> >
> > Are you aware that ordinary deletyion would not remove these images and
> > that the police have advised that having once had any of these images on
> > your pc, the only sure way to remove them is to destroy your hard drive?
> >
> > Hey presto! A questionnaire - and the guts of an article. If anyone
> > wishes to write it up, then please feel free to borrow.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > M
> >
> > Author wrote:
> >> with apologies to those of us here like Paul Tavener & Nigel who
> >> aren't 'of us' in this respect.
> >> Manniq has posted the figure of 4 million. I also note the Durex survey.
> >> I asked this question on the research group but it might get some
> >> other answers here.
> >> I'm looking for any sort of idea of:
> >> ...how many people in Britain are interested in BDSM or similar things
> >> ...how many (in UK or worldwide) look at BDSM porn.
> >> There are stats compiled by the anti-porn lobby that are trotted out
> >> nearly everywhere to show how big the porn market is and other things.
> >> They seem very suspect and some of them are ludicrously meaningless,
> >> but they show the size of the market (for porn in general). Look on
> >> backlash-research for the details.
> >> The bigger the better, I say. For three reasons:
> >> 1) If (say) 20 million worldwide were reliably estimated to look at
> >> 'extreme porn', and of those say a hundred worldwide were found guilty
> >> of crimes where porn was implicated, that proportion (0.0005%) is
> >> quite interesting. For one thing, it's something like the proportion
> >> of the UK Islamic community who have been suicide bombers. I can't be
> >> very different from the proportion of doctors who are serial killers.
> >> Do we see across-the-board Government sanctions against Muslims, or
> >> doctors, on the basis of the one in 200,000 that it's aimed at?
> >> 2) Four million of the 40 million or so adults in the UK is a pretty
> >> big gap in the ranks of that society that Goggins believes will find
> >> the material abhorrent. For a government to enforce the moral values
> >> of society, it ought to be pretty clear that that society actually
> >> holds those values.
> >> 3) We vote.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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%3D2980
> >
> >


doulos, 04 Nov 2005 15:20:14

If they already suspect you (which they would have to ever make data
on your PC relevant to their investigation) , then they can find
evidence of access through looking through records with your ISP or
even using their own security system that covers all net access in the
UK. If the law comes into practice, then evidence will always exist if
you access illegal files. The only protection will be anonymity. There
won't be an easy way to dodge getting evidence (as it turns out, even
if you don't commit a crime).


guy, 04 Nov 2005 16:49:09

** Reply to message from doulos on Fri, 4 Nov 2005
15:13:06 +0000

> If they already suspect you (which they would have to ever make data
> on your PC relevant to their investigation) , then they can find
> evidence of access through looking through records with your ISP or
> even using their own security system that covers all net access in the
> UK. If the law comes into practice, then evidence will always exist if
> you access illegal files. The only protection will be anonymity. There
> won't be an easy way to dodge getting evidence (as it turns out, even
> if you don't commit a crime).
>
In other words, if this legislation really were about banning the worst kind of
internet porn, the authorities and Police have more than adequate means already
to identify dangerous sites and then monitor those who use them. This
legislation then seems entirely superfluous, for that purpose.

Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100


Manniq, 04 Nov 2005 17:42:10

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here, but....if the offence is one of possession, then unless they find evidence of an offending image within the precincts of your home, they are stuffed.

Hmmm....yes...they can view records that state that your pc accessed a particular site and link on such and such a date, but... if they can't find the result of that access, then where's their case?

Many, many internet links are broken and/or don't download what they are supposed to.

Reagrds,

M
Author wrote:
> If they already suspect you (which they would have to ever make data
> on your PC relevant to their investigation) , then they can find
> evidence of access through looking through records with your ISP or
> even using their own security system that covers all net access in the
> UK. If the law comes into practice, then evidence will always exist if
> you access illegal files. The only protection will be anonymity. There
> won't be an easy way to dodge getting evidence (as it turns out, even
> if you don't commit a crime).


Morgarth, 04 Nov 2005 18:45:09

Manniq wrote:
> I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here, but....if the offence is one of possession, then unless they find evidence of an offending image within the precincts of your home, they are stuffed.

Indeed I think we are. If the legislation ever comes to pass then trying to evade being caught - by whatever means - suggests a "guilty mind" and adds fuel to the prosecution fire. Best dump the hard disc in a car crusher and buy a new one if you are worried.

This isn't a technical battle and if it were to become one then we will have lost the battle to live by our own conscience.

If I had a picture of a torturer unscrewing a naked woman's nipples with glowing iron tongs as she gazes out with an adoring look then I would want to be able to look at it not delete it. And, for that matter, I would want to leave the original hanging on the wall of the Catholic church where I believe it has been for the past few centuries.

Morgarth


DAury, 04 Nov 2005 22:10:37

> I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here, but....if the offence is one of possession, then unless they find evidence of an offending image within the precincts of your home, they are stuffed.
>
> Hmmm....yes...they can view records that state that your pc accessed a particular site and link on such and such a date, but... if they can't find the result of that access, then where's their case?
>
> Many, many internet links are broken and/or don't download what they are supposed to.

As all UK ISPs have been logging and archiving users comms data traffic for years
now, it would be easy to find people who are, or were, regular visitors to websites
known to provide a high proportion of images that are guaranteed to be illegal under
the new law, Insex.com seems to be a favourite example. The logs will show the
image filenames transferred as you viewed or downloaded them. It may be that in
future, this is enough evidence to warrant "investigating" a person, as with repeated
access (particularly if a paid-for password is required), you could not claim to have
stumbled over the site accidentally.

Even if they find nothing in your house or on your PC, from the accounts of people
who have been investigated for kiddie porn, I can guarantee that the process will
change your life.

Keith


«No Name Set», 04 Nov 2005 22:34:27

We-ell....

You could use a text-only system that won't display pictures.
Of itself, that may not stop them arriving (in spam emails, for
example) but they will appear as merely acres and acres
(hectares) of coded gibberish and not be apparent what they are.

You could use a remote browser by telnetting into it (or
otherwise) so all caching is done on the remote server and
nothing comes down to your local computer. The only ones I know
of that you can use like this are text-only browsers, so you
can't be accused of looking at illegal pics on those, either.

You could disconnect your modem and go back to paper and
fountain pen and envelopes. Or as the case may be, floppy disks
and "articles for the blind" wallets...


I'm sure you don't need me to point out the disadvantages of all
these options (despite the DDA's several year existence).

Rosemary

--
Rosemary


Paul Tavener, 04 Nov 2005 22:44:07

I believe you can get "zero foot print" software for looking at film/video without keeping a copy of it on your hard drive. This whole area is something that may have to be investigated in great detail, but later.

It must be possible to arrange for the operating system and key programs to be located on a read only drive and use a disposable disk for Internet activity. Again a lot of scope for investigation later.

Perhaps a whole group could be set up to investigate this if it looks like the laws going to go through
Author wrote:
> OK, so....for the techies out there.
> Is there any way in which one can guarantee that no images end up on the Hard Drive? Perhaps by buying a data stick and setting your cache to drive E: (or equivalent?).
> Would Windows allow this?
> Regards,
> M


Paul Tavener, 04 Nov 2005 22:58:04

Although true to some extent if you were to use a proxy server for all activity then it would be difficult to find out what you had been doing as all of the content would come from the proxy and not the dodgy site.

When Internet television takes off in the next few years the amount of content flying about the Internet will make it very difficult to keep track on exactly *what* you have downloaded even if they do know where and when. IPTV will also provide a backdrop of big big bandwidth users to be lost amoungst.

Author wrote:
> If they already suspect you (which they would have to ever make data
> on your PC relevant to their investigation) , then they can find
> evidence of access through looking through records with your ISP or
> even using their own security system that covers all net access in the
> UK. If the law comes into practice, then evidence will always exist if
> you access illegal files. The only protection will be anonymity. There
> won't be an easy way to dodge getting evidence (as it turns out, even
> if you don't commit a crime).


Paul Tavener, 04 Nov 2005 23:17:34

"I would want to leave the original hanging on the wall of the Catholic church where I believe it has been for the past few centuries."

Where is this then! Such an image might be used to great effect in the campaign.

Author wrote:
> Manniq wrote:
> > I think we are getting ahead of ourselves here, but....if the offence is one of possession, then unless they find evidence of an offending image within the precincts of your home, they are stuffed.
> Indeed I think we are. If the legislation ever comes to pass then trying to evade being caught - by whatever means - suggests a "guilty mind" and adds fuel to the prosecution fire. Best dump the hard disc in a car crusher and buy a new one if you are worried.
> This isn't a technical battle and if it were to become one then we will have lost the battle to live by our own conscience.
> If I had a picture of a torturer unscrewing a naked woman's nipples with glowing iron tongs as she gazes out with an adoring look then I would want to be able to look at it not delete it. And, for that matter, I would want to leave the original hanging on the wall of the Catholic church where I believe it has been for the past few centuries.
> Morgarth


Paul C. Dickie, 04 Nov 2005 23:39:28

In message <4618262.1131129861431.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:
>If I had a picture of a torturer unscrewing a naked woman's nipples with glowing
>iron tongs as she gazes out with an adoring look then I would want to be able to
>look at it not delete it. And, for that matter, I would want to leave the
>original hanging on the wall of the Catholic church where I believe it has been
>for the past few centuries.

Very clever, but did he manage to screw them back on again afterwards?

--
< Paul >