Thread

Protect or Punish?

clare, 08 Nov 2005 08:56:00

The first objective is to get rid of the Consultation proposals, by whatever means.

Graham's MP gave a very thoughtful and detailed response to Graham's letter. Interestingly the MP made the error of thinking that the proposals will control material on the internet and block a loophole in the OPA. Of course that is wrong, while a person who viewed an image is thrown in prison the picture he viewed will remain on the internet. Graham's response focused on whether censorship restrictions were justified rather than pointing out that the proposals will not in fact control material. THey only punish deviants.

This is a really fundamental point. If you keep this debate on the territory of pro/anti censorship you lose the opportunity to point out that the proposals censor nothing. They only punish.

The proposal is to change the UK model of censorship from one that protects people from depravity to one that punishes people for depravity.

This is the proposal, and this is what we have to oppose at this stage.

It's a really simple point, easy to get accross. It doesn't need people to understand consensual bdsm, non-consensual, none of that detailed stuff.

If and when the government come up with a model for censoring the Internet (and at the moment that could be CleenFeed) that is the moment to debate the de-merits of censorship, along with the huge lobby that will be making the same point in relation to relegious and political content.

Why am I wrong?

*** This message has been edited by clare on 08 Nov 2005 08:58:42 ***

demolitionred, 08 Nov 2005 10:44:24

eerrrrrrrr.

Most people want to punish the depraved. the anti-pro censorship debate brings on board the anti ID card people. It shows that there is a common shift away from feedom i this country. Every single person I have discussed this with has been concerned about the attack on freedom. They might not like perverts but they don't feel its worth losing their freedoms to get rid of them.

Have I misunderstood your point.

clare, 08 Nov 2005 11:04:16

The anti-ID card people are of course right to oppose this proposal, whichever way you pitch it. A proposal to lock up people for what they look at, rather than what they do is a dramatic shift away from freedom in this country. Its a gross authoritarian measure that doesn't even address the question of whether censorship (restricting the availability of material)is acceptable in the age of the internet.

The proposal involves the violation of privacy, snooping on personal electronic communications, self-censorship through fear. All the points that bring on board anti-ID people are there in force.

My point is that these proposals are not about censorship (restricting available material), but far far worse intrusions into liberty and privacy.

Do you think that if people thought it was just about locking up people the state regards as "deviant", people would say oh ok that's fine then?

"Locking up the deviants" smacks of 1939, surely no one can miss that point?

Censorship is a function of every modern state. The debate has only ever been about the extent of that censorship. If and when the government proposes a model to actually censor the internet (and this consultation is not that model) there will be a very dynamic debate as to whether the traditional models of censorship are appropriate or even workable in the new age of the internet. That debate is happening, and this proposal pretends to be a part of it. In fact it is not, it is something much worse.

Clare

Author wrote:
> eerrrrrrrr.
> Most people want to punish the depraved. the anti-pro censorship debate brings on board the anti ID card people. It shows that there is a common shift away from feedom i this country. Every single person I have discussed this with has been concerned about the attack on freedom. They might not like perverts but they don't feel its worth losing their freedoms to get rid of them.
> Have I misunderstood your point.

clare, 08 Nov 2005 11:04:16

Graham Marsden, 08 Nov 2005 16:08:40

pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:

> The first objective is to get rid of the Consultation proposals, by
> whatever means.

Get rid of them, yes, but not by using means that would weaken our
position or stop us using certain arguments.

> Graham's MP gave a very thoughtful and detailed response to Graham's
> letter. Interestingly the MP made the error of thinking that the
> proposals will control material on the internet and block a loophole
> in the OPA.
>
> Of course that is wrong, while a person who viewed an image is thrown
> in prison the picture he viewed will remain on the internet. Graham's
> response focused on whether censorship restrictions were justified
> rather than pointing out that the proposals do not control material.

Yes, but I did make the point that these proposals would be effectively
unpoliceable were they to be introduced both in the message I have just
posted and my original letter to my MP.

Cheers,
Graham.

Paul Tavener, 08 Nov 2005 20:45:08

I hate to say it but I fear a lot would. If you can engage them in a debate it's a different matter entirely, once they have agreed that deviants should be locked away (as many probably would without giving the matter any proper consideration) then is the time to hit them with some example of deviency that were fairly mild and some of the horror stories about police raids, then watch them back peddle all the way back to your position.

One of the problems is that a large proportion of the population simply do not think these things through.

Author wrote:
Do you think that if people thought it was just about locking up people the state regards as "deviant", people would say oh ok that's fine then?

"Locking up the deviants" smacks of 1939, surely no one can miss that point?

guy, 08 Nov 2005 21:20:11

thought it was just about locking up people the
> state regards as "deviant", people would say oh ok that's fine then?
>
> "Locking up the deviants" smacks of 1939, surely no one can miss that point?
>
The expert legal opinion I have just been given is that to be squeaky clean I
am going to have to burn or otherwise dispose of thousands of pounds worth of
books or magazines, (including rare C18, C19 & C20 books purchased with a view
to facsimile reproduction, high art and fetish photography, etc.), by
government edict, if this proposal becomes law. All of it unlikely to fall foul
of existing laws, or I would have destroyed it on acquisition. Not to mention
bales of original art and archives of nearly 20 years of IMHO entirely legal
and ethical activity in the scene - archives I am am also told I should legally
keep by the requirements of the tax and VATman. Oh and if any trace is left
that I have so expunged the stock or archives, that would be adduced as
evidence of an attempt to evade the law.

When did the Nazis start burning books?

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

SnowdropExplodes, 08 Nov 2005 21:52:07

--- Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:

> and if any trace is left
> that I have so expunged the stock or archives, that
> would be adduced as
> evidence of an attempt to evade the law.

WHAT!?

So, the fact that I have these images on my computer
NOW, and that I might purchase file shredding software
to REMOVE them, in order to (attempt to) comply with
the new law, would actually be sufficient to make me
GUILTY under the new law?

Surely that contravenes Article 7 of the European
Convention on Human Rights? the Liberty website
says, "Article 7 guarantees that you cannot be
punished for something that was not an offence at the
time you did it or given a sentence which is more than
the maximum that applied at the time you committed the
offence."

Therefore, if you currently own "extreme" pornography,
but then (if the law is passed) take all reasonable
measures to get rid of it before the new law comes
into effect, surely you should be protected, not
prosecuted?

I was going to suggest that one way of protesting
would be, between the bill receiving royal approval
and the law taking effect, everyone should send copies
of every single photo or piece of video footage on
their computer to the CPS asking to be told which they
were allowed to keep and which had to be destroyed
(and for the CPS or the Government to provide the cost
of doing so, if the only way is genuinely to trash the
old hard drive and buy a new one).

If this legal opinion is accurate, then even if they
told us quickly enough for us to act on it, acting on
it would provide no defence.

Can you post the full legal opinion, as it would make
an excellent argument when writing to MPs, especially
if we can also quote a source from the Police
regarding the statement that the only way to get rid
of the images completely is to trash the hard drive
and buy a new one. We've already seen how a telling
factor in the ID Cards bill was the fact that the
cards would cost so much; if we could present the
price tag of willing compliance with the new law in a
similar light, maybe it would make people sit up and
take notice. At the very least, it would suggest
that the people they want to discourage (and thereby
"break the supply-demand-supply cycle" as the
consultation paper puts it) would have a very strong
disincentive to comply with the new law - after all,
if you've already got a whole load of the stuff and
can't get rid of it without facing prosecution anyway,
or else spending huge amounts of money, why not carry
on collecting more? Might as well be hung for a
sheep as a lamb.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

guy, 08 Nov 2005 22:07:12

** Reply to message from -OJT- on Tue, 8 Nov
2005 21:46:04 +0000 (GMT)

> --- Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
>
> > and if any trace is left
> > that I have so expunged the stock or archives, that
> > would be adduced as
> > evidence of an attempt to evade the law.
>
> WHAT!?
>
> So, the fact that I have these images on my computer
> NOW, and that I might purchase file shredding software
> to REMOVE them, in order to (attempt to) comply with
> the new law, would actually be sufficient to make me
> GUILTY under the new law?
>
Not quite. What I was told is that if they find nothing so significant that
they are sure to win on just that, the fact that I have apparently tried to
'cover my tracks' and succeeded, (because they found nothing, and the
presumption is of guilt not innocence), will be used as a smear tactic implying
I might not have the hard stuff now, but did before, to bolster their case on
what they have found.

> Therefore, if you currently own "extreme" pornography,
> but then (if the law is passed) take all reasonable
> measures to get rid of it before the new law comes
> into effect, surely you should be protected, not
> prosecuted?
>
With all due respect, I don't think that is how things will work out in the
real world. If a prosecuting barrister can make an effective rhetorical point,
they will, regardless of the legal niceties.

> Can you post the full legal opinion,

No. The person, though suitably qualified to advise, would not put it in
writing. For that you need to pay a QC.

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, 08 Nov 2005 22:16:43

Something that has already crossed my mind is putting in place a support network in advance of this becoming law.

One asp[ect would be legal response teams to go in hard and fast on peoples' behalves (?).

Second would be a pc clean facility (no: not some device for removing corruption from the Met....that is beyond the wit of mofdern technology...but a once-off pc spring clean).

And third....well, given what is likely to happen, would it be beyond the realms of the imagination to contemplate a 'safe house' in a civilised country to which people such as yourself sent their 'stash'? Hardly appropriate for most people...but where the collection contains rare, expensive or highly personal mementoes...maybe.

(BTW: perhaps one could offer this facility to the British Library as well!).

Just imagine the sight...a convoy of cars and trailers setting off down the M2 to Dover the night before the Act becomes law.

Hey....could be scope for a comedy drama in there.... as the clock ticks toward midnight, a gung ho police officer waits to ambush stragglers. The last car leaving breaks down at a service station near Ashford at 10.15.

Oh no! Will the intrepid bdsm'ers reach safety in time...or will plod the ineffable get them before the channel?

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> thought it was just about locking up people the
> > state regards as "deviant", people would say oh ok that's fine then?
> >
> > "Locking up the deviants" smacks of 1939, surely no one can miss that point?
> >
> The expert legal opinion I have just been given is that to be squeaky clean I
> am going to have to burn or otherwise dispose of thousands of pounds worth of
> books or magazines, (including rare C18, C19 & C20 books purchased with a view
> to facsimile reproduction, high art and fetish photography, etc.), by
> government edict, if this proposal becomes law. All of it unlikely to fall foul
> of existing laws, or I would have destroyed it on acquisition. Not to mention
> bales of original art and archives of nearly 20 years of IMHO entirely legal
> and ethical activity in the scene - archives I am am also told I should legally
> keep by the requirements of the tax and VATman. Oh and if any trace is left
> that I have so expunged the stock or archives, that would be adduced as
> evidence of an attempt to evade the law.
> When did the Nazis start burning books?
> 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

SnowdropExplodes, 08 Nov 2005 22:22:27

--- Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:

> ** Reply to message from -OJT-
> on Tue, 8 Nov
> 2005 21:46:04 +0000 (GMT)
>
> > --- Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
> >
> > > and if any trace is left
> > > that I have so expunged the stock or archives,
> that
> > > would be adduced as
> > > evidence of an attempt to evade the law.
> >
> > WHAT!?
> >
> > So, the fact that I have these images on my
> computer
> > NOW, and that I might purchase file shredding
> software
> > to REMOVE them, in order to (attempt to) comply
> with
> > the new law, would actually be sufficient to make
> me
> > GUILTY under the new law?
> >
> Not quite. What I was told is that if they find
> nothing so significant that
> they are sure to win on just that, the fact that I
> have apparently tried to
> 'cover my tracks' and succeeded, (because they found
> nothing, and the
> presumption is of guilt not innocence), will be used
> as a smear tactic implying
> I might not have the hard stuff now, but did before,
> to bolster their case on
> what they have found.
>
> > Therefore, if you currently own "extreme"
> pornography,
> > but then (if the law is passed) take all
> reasonable
> > measures to get rid of it before the new law comes
> > into effect, surely you should be protected, not
> > prosecuted?
> >
> With all due respect, I don't think that is how
> things will work out in the
> real world. If a prosecuting barrister can make an
> effective rhetorical point,
> they will, regardless of the legal niceties.

It adds up to the same thing in the end - damned if
you do try to get rid of it, damned if you don't.

We REALLY need to defeat this proposal!

>
> > Can you post the full legal opinion,
>
> No. The person, though suitably qualified to advise,
> would not put it in
> writing. For that you need to pay a QC.

Fair enough; I guess that's why Backlash are doing so.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

adrian, 09 Nov 2005 00:18:39

We can certainly advise on how to clean your PC. In a fair world, a
visible attempt at deletion would be enough to cover you over any file
which you might have inadvertently downloaded. If you had enough
deleted but recoverable files, they'd have to prove that you
downloaded them after the act came into force. But it could be used
to show that you had an interest, which might make the existence of
some missed file significant.

It's true that 'deletion' simply removes the file from being
accessible by name, and it may persist in whole or in part until the
space is overwritten by other files. There are scare stories based on
the fact that specialised equipment can see the pattern of bits even
when overwritten. This is equivalent to painting over a chessboard.
A computer is binary, and is only interested in 1 and 0, or black and
white in this case. To a PC, it's all white, but to the human eye and
to equipment designed to see it, the black and white squares are
faintly visible below it. I doubt this sort of forensic work is worth
it unless they really want to nail you, but you should wipe rather
than delete when in doubt.

I believe that erasing software is pretty effective at doing this, as
they overwrite with random patterns that can't easily be worked out.
After several passes any residual data is well and truly hidden in the
mush and noise. I think the advice to destroy your hard disc is
excessive, and in a world where miscarriages of justice never happened
it would be absurd.

In _this_ country however, yes, the prosecution could try to make all
sorts of hay out of the fact that you erased rather than deleted - 'is
this the action of someone with nothing to hide?' - but I'd personally
make a robust case that everybody should use privacy tools as a matter
of course, that it's almost a moral duty for people these days. It
could only really be damaging if the erasing was found to be done
after the act was passed.

I can start a document of practical advice and I'm sure there are
techies with better relevant info who can help. But surely, we only
really need to do this if and when the bill becomes law. Until then I
suspect it might be more in our interests to make sure that a lot of
people knew we had it.

Paul C. Dickie, 09 Nov 2005 01:20:41

In message <20051108214604.75229.qmail@web86206.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>, -
OJT- wrote:
>--- Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
>> and if any trace is left that I have so expunged the stock or
>>archives, that would be adduced as evidence of an attempt to evade the
>>law.
>
>WHAT!?
>
>So, the fact that I have these images on my computer NOW, and that
>I might purchase file shredding software to REMOVE them, in order
>to (attempt to) comply with the new law, would actually be sufficient
>to make me GUILTY under the new law?
>
>Surely that contravenes Article 7 of the European Convention on Human
>Rights? the Liberty website says, "Article 7 guarantees that you
>cannot be punished for something that was not an offence at the
>time you did it or given a sentence which is more than the maximum
>that applied at the time you committed the offence."

Since when did our beloved 'government' worry about such niceties of
law? Two days ago, the Nazi war criminal Anthony Sawoniuk died in
Norwich gaol at the age of 84; he was serving two life sentences for
murders he committed in his native town of Domachevo, Belarus, in or
around 1941. At no time was that region under UK jurisdiction and
certainly not at the time of the murders, as it was under Nazi
occupation and, hence, the murders were officially sanctioned.

Horrid as it might appear to some, article 7 seems to suggest that
Sawoniuk ought never to have been convicted of an offence which was
*not* contrary to the barbarous laws of the Nazi regime. How, then, was
it even possible to have the War Crimes act 1991 operate
retrospectively?

The answer is that Parliament cheerfully ignores the law whenever it
pleases.

http://snipurl.com/jnvp

--
< Paul >

Paul C. Dickie, 09 Nov 2005 08:21:12

In message <1092422.1131488061510.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>Something that has already crossed my mind is putting in place a support network
>in advance of this becoming law.
>
>One asp[ect would be legal response teams to go in hard and fast on peoples'
>behalves (?).
>
>Second would be a pc clean facility (no: not some device for removing corruption
>from the Met....that is beyond the wit of mofdern technology...

Actually, it isn't.

Just sack the lot...

--
< Paul >

guy, 09 Nov 2005 08:55:24

** Reply to message from Adrian on Wed, 9 Nov 2005
00:15:38 +0000

> I can start a document of practical advice and I'm sure there are
> techies with better relevant info who can help. But surely, we only
> really need to do this if and when the bill becomes law. Until then I
> suspect it might be more in our interests to make sure that a lot of
> people knew we had it.
>
One concern is about "Grandfather" backups, which depending on whatever backup
system and regime you may use, may be up to a year old. Even if you have
diligently cleaned you hard drive, etc., if the data is still on a year-old
backup tape, you still "possess" it.

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

Roel, 09 Nov 2005 09:19:18

manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> And third....well, given what is likely to happen, would it be beyond
> the realms of the imagination to contemplate a 'safe house' in a
> civilised country to which people such as yourself sent their
> 'stash'? Hardly appropriate for most people...but where the
> collection contains rare, expensive or highly personal
> mementoes...maybe.

Interesting idea, but I think practically impossible, unless there is a
country where literally anything goes. The owner(s) of the safe house
would have to go through all those images to make pretty damn sure there
isn't anything in it that is illegal in their host country. And I wonder
who would like to go through someones 10.000+ porn pics collection
simply to check if there might be a picture with a minor or something
like that.

At best it would be a very expensive service I suppose.

Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://yahoo.touwtjes.tk/ - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)

SnowdropExplodes, 09 Nov 2005 16:01:34

--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:

> And third....well, given what is likely to happen,
> would it be beyond the realms of the imagination to
> contemplate a 'safe house' in a civilised country to
> which people such as yourself sent their 'stash'?
> Hardly appropriate for most people...but where the
> collection contains rare, expensive or highly
> personal mementoes...maybe.
>
> (BTW: perhaps one could offer this facility to the
> British Library as well!).
>
> Just imagine the sight...a convoy of cars and
> trailers setting off down the M2 to Dover the night
> before the Act becomes law.
>
> Hey....could be scope for a comedy drama in
> there.... as the clock ticks toward midnight, a gung
> ho police officer waits to ambush stragglers. The
> last car leaving breaks down at a service station
> near Ashford at 10.15.
>
> Oh no! Will the intrepid bdsm'ers reach safety in
> time...or will plod the ineffable get them before
> the channel?

Pitch it to a TV executive from Channel 4 or something
- work out a more detailed plot outline and show it to
someone important - you never know, they may go for
it!

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

�No Name Set�, 10 Nov 2005 19:32:30

Stuff here for the mailer to eat

if it's in that sort of mood.

-OJT- writes:
--- manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just imagine the sight...a convoy of cars and
> trailers setting off down the M2 to Dover the night
> before the Act becomes law.
>
> Hey....could be scope for a comedy drama in
> there.... as the clock ticks toward midnight, a gung
> ho police officer waits to ambush stragglers. The
> last car leaving breaks down at a service station
> near Ashford at 10.15.
>
> Oh no! Will the intrepid bdsm'ers reach safety in
> time...or will plod the ineffable get them before
> the channel?

Pitch it to a TV executive from Channel 4 or something
- work out a more detailed plot outline and show it to
someone important - you never know, they may go for
it!

Maybe we could write it as a radio play for the next podcast?

Anyone interested in working on this??

= and don't forget the convoy of SM dykes and gays heading to the
Harwich-Hoek van Holland ferry on their motorbikes, to donate all
their archives to the Homodok in Amsterdam.

--
Rosemary