Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node

from the how-long-will-this-take-to-explain dept

Tue, May 31st 2011 12:47pm — Mike Masnick

Javier points us to the news that the police in Austria have seized a bunch of computer equipment from the home of someone running a tor exit node. The email is not entirely clear, but it sounds like someone used tor -- via that exit node -- to access a porn site. Seeing as the equipment was seized, I'm assuming that this wasn't just a standard porn site. It seems like this is a risk that many people running tor exit nodes may face -- but the big question is how difficult is it to explain to the police what tor is, what an exit node is, why such things are perfectly legal, and why this means they're looking in the wrong place? Or will law enforcement just avoid all these details and assume that running a tor exit node is proof of guilt?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: austria, exit node, tor

256 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 12:53pm

Maybe there is a price to be paid for enabling diddlers and perverts to access kiddie porn. Just a thought. Free speech, free speech, rah, rah, rah!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 12:57pm
  
  Re:
  Maybe there is a price to be paid for letting all nations determine that anonymity is a crime.
  But you won't realise that until it affects you and then it will be too late.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    anonymity for the purpose of furthering child porn, terrorism and other law breaking shouldn't be protected. Sorry if that will camp your style.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Criminals will always be anonymous, regardless of the law.
      
      Anonymity is bad -- says the coward posting as Anonymous.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Do understand the statement you post? Anonymity requires lack of identification. If the user is identified it is no longer anonymous. That means that all anonymous traffic must be monitored to reveal the identity of the user.
      
      Do you get it? No? Well good luck in life.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You do get that unless anonymity is protected then there is no anonymity at all right?
      
      No one other than you is arguing that bad things are good and worthwhile things.
      What they are saying is that many good and worthwhile things will be cramped, even destroyed altogether in the pretence of ensuring that bad things never ever happen in the digital space.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, sneakernet needs to be made illegal. The postal service, package delivery companies, Sidewalks, streets, fertilizer... I could go on forever. Don't blame the tool, blame the person using it illegally.
      
      Remember, every time you justify punishing an innocent person, you justify letting a guilty person walk free (and are one step closer to that innocent being you).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phillip Vector (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 4:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." - Gerald Seymour
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If crimefighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "If crimefighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"
        
        Perhaps, we should classify the MPAA and RIAA as freedom fighters.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or...if freedom fighters fight for freedom, what do firefighters fight for?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 6:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IF you get olive oil by squeezing olives where do you get baby oil from.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 6:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      anonymity for the purpose of furthering child porn, terrorism and other law breaking shouldn't be protected.
      You can't choose the purpose of anonymity - you either have it for everyone or for no-one.
      
      Enabling amonymity has some downsides but do you really think that stopping a few sad and random people is worth enabling Hitler for?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re:
  I'm sure they'll be arresting all the other internet infrastructure owners shortly. Since the internet certainly allows some people to find kiddie porn, all of the internet infrastructure should be seized too, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 3:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    To be honest, there'd definitely be no access to child porn at all, if we just banned children and be done with it.
    
    Now I realise that such a ban could have downsides but if you're against it, you are definitely promoting child porn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:03pm
  
  Tor is the future of piracy!
  If you don't mind enabling and being investigated for child porn!
  
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is the reason Tor will not last forever unregulated.
  
  Tor is ignored because it has a very small user base. As it grows, don't think law enforcement's interest won't as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:08pm
    
    Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
    TOR is going to last forever, thank you very much, and TOR cannot be regulated by law.
    
    They can try to say that encrypted/anonymous web surfing is now made illegal by law, but everyone who hasn't been gulled with the "LAW AND ORDAH" bullcrap will just ignore it, as I personally will.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
    Ladies and gentlemen, this is the reason Tor will not last forever unregulated.
    
    Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we don't let the technologically ignorant decide how technology works.
    
    Good luck "regulating" Tor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
      Tor nodes can be shut down or blocked at the drop of a hat.
      
      Also, Tor themselves have described numerous mechanisms by which a dedicated, well funded entity could break the network's anonymity.
      
      It's not a secret. They are very public about it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - HothMonster, 31 May 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        their being aware of the flaws in their system != it needs to be regulated....also regulation has nothing to do with their ability to close off nodes...
        
        im an having trouble seeing how your second statement is supposed to be in defense of your first?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Tor was never meant to be a safe haven. Tor was never meant for complete anonymity. You can still be traced, tracked and found through Tor. Tor was the first "We won't really explain how it works hoping people will not understand", like Cloud now is. It's propaganda BS designed to lull you away from the idea of sending data going through unidentified third parties. Tor is not the holy grail everyone makes it to be; far from. Tor has been here for a while but never really gained in popularity. Why not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Tor was the first "We won't really explain how it works hoping people will not understand", like Cloud now is.
        
        Umm, no. You don't know what you're talking about. The people who developed TOR described exactly how it worked. In detail. They also pointed out various weaknesses. They weren't try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        "Tor has been here for a while but never really gained in popularity. Why not?"
        
        Using the TOR network is slow as balls.
        
        Also you can be removed you if you take up too much bandwidth, not that you would want to try to get anything large over TOR anyway because as I said, its slow as balls.s
        
        The only reason to use TOR is if you need anonymity, whether for nefarious needs or not. Although as the founders and maintainers clearly explain there are ways to mine the exit nodes for data.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - monkyyy, 31 May 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        and like the beer, when it gets banned, people will find a way, and it will also strengthen organized crime
        YAY!!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael Long (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
      Tor can be used for good, anonymous reasons. Whistle-blowing. Dissent. Preserving privacy in the case, say, of HIV testing. All true. Unfortunately, Tor can ALSO be used for illegal purposes. Specifically, and apparently in this case, child porn.
      
      The problem is this: You run a Tor exit node, and someone uses it to request child porn. As such, that request appears to originate from your IP address. The police hit your house, take your equipment, and maybe even arrest you to boot.
      
      You imply that this is bad, and it is. But you can't give anyone who runs a Tor exit node a free pass. What if -- just as an example -- you jump on your Tor server and start visiting child porn sites.
      
      The police knock on your door, and you now innocently point to your Tor server and claim that some other "anonymous" person made the request through your machine. You're innocent.
      
      Bingo. You've got your instant Tor "get out of jail free" card.
      
      It's not that far-feteched. Remember the rulings and convictions given to "journalists" who were just "researching" child porn for an article or study? Same principe applies.
      
      As long as some people misuse the system, the people who support the system are endangered.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        The problem is this: You run a Tor exit node, and someone uses it to request child porn. As such, that request appears to originate from your IP address.
        
        So you're suggesting that IP addresses correspond to individuals? They don't.
        
        The police hit your house, take your equipment, and maybe even arrest you to boot.
        
        The problem is with the police, not Tor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael Long (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        "So you're suggesting that IP addresses correspond to individuals? They don't."
        
        Please. An IP address, coupled with a timestamp, point to the location that was assigned that particular address at that particular point in time.
        
        Now, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that location is your house. The police have followed the trail to your front door... and smashed it in. Now what?
        
        Well, it's possible... that someone piggy-backed on your open WiFi network. It's also possible that someone issued the request through your Tor exit server.
        
        And it's ALSO possible... if not probable... that it was you all along. So the police seize the equipment found at that location and turn it over to forensics.
        
        What else *could* they do?
        
        And no, the problem is not the police. The problem is that someone hijacked a system designed for one thing and twisted it to their own ends. Blame them, not the cops.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 3:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Please. An IP address, coupled with a timestamp, point to the location that was assigned that particular address at that particular point in time.
        
        No, it doesn't even necessarily do that (I suppose you've never heard of wireless?). It *may* indicate an entity to which an IP address was assigned, but that's usually about it. Don't assume it means more than it does.
        
        Now, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that location is your house. The police have followed the trail to your front door... and smashed it in. Now what?
        
        And shot you, your wife, and dog because of the *possibility* that you might try to defend yourself. You left that part out.
        
        Well, it's possible... that someone piggy-backed on your open WiFi network. It's also possible that someone issued the request through your Tor exit server.
        
        And it's ALSO possible... if not probable... that it was you all along. So the police seize the equipment found at that location and turn it over to forensics.
        
        As to *possibilities*, there are many. It's possible for anyone with access to any router along the way to use the address. This includes people at the ISP, backbone providers, hosting companies, etc. I personally have access to such routers and, if I wanted to, I could easily spoof traffic. If the police are going to bust doors down and seize equipment based on *possibilities*, they should go after those as well.
        
        What else *could* they do?
        
        I just told you, they could go after everyone in the chain. What do you say about that? Or they could realize that going after *possibilities* doesn't justify such behavior.
        
        And no, the problem is not the police.
        
        So it's not a problem for police kick to kick in the doors of innocent people and take their property based on nothing more than a *possibility*? I disagree.
        
        The problem is that someone hijacked a system designed for one thing and twisted it to their own ends. Blame them, not the cops.
        
        I blame both. Sorry, I just don't worship cops run amok. And I wonder if this doesn't maybe have less to do with child pornography and more to do with the cops wanting to make an example out of someone running a Tor exit node and finding an excuse to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        No, it doesn't even necessarily do that (I suppose you've never heard of wireless?). It *may* indicate an entity to which an IP address was assigned, but that's usually about it. Don't assume it means more than it does.
        
        Time to brush up on technology huh? You can be easily identified, even through wireless. It's called logging and MAC addresses. All your wireless APs will log the MAC address and at which time it assigned you an IP. Find the hardware, find the culprit. Simple as that. Nothing magical here. Unless you start spoofing your MAC (which no one ever does except more tech savvy people trying to hack the wireless), then you can get caught.
        
        The moral of the story is: you run a tor exit node, you are responsible for the traffic. You try to help people do illegal things anonymously (because let's face it, 2/3 of it is for illegal stuff otherwise why hide at all?). It's the same for "open" VPNs. You offer them for free (or a small free). You own the service. You rent it. You are responsible for traffic going through it.
        
        Then you get caught and start crying. Boo hoo. I'm sure if you go to your ISP's website and read their AUP and TOS, they WILL tell you that you're responsible for 100% of traffic going to your IPs. There you have it. They won't police yo, but if they have complaints about it, they will act on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Time to brush up on technology huh?
        
        Not really. I make living from this stuff everyday.
        
        You can be easily identified, even through wireless.
        
        No, you can't. IP addresses (and even associated MAC addresses) don't identify people. It is the technically ignorant who believe otherwise.
        
        It's called logging and MAC addresses... blah blah blah
        
        None of which gives your "location", as you claimed. WiFi *can* reach many miles. My own WiFi signal covers several street addresses. To put it in simple terms for you, it could be in use at any of them. Is that so hard to understand? So which door should the cops kick in? Now, please, stop making stuff up.
        
        The moral of the story is: you run a tor exit node, you are responsible for the traffic.
        
        Says who? You? The guy who doesn't even understand networking?
        
        You try to help people do illegal things anonymously (because let's face it, 2/3 of it is for illegal stuff otherwise why hide at all?).
        
        Oh, there you go, pulling out the old, tired, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide" line. That's been debunked so many times I'm not even going to wast my time with it.
        
        Then you get caught and start crying. Boo hoo. I'm sure if you go to your ISP's website and read their AUP and TOS, they WILL tell you that you're responsible for 100% of traffic going to your IPs. There you have it.
        
        I hate to break it to you, but AUP's and TOS's aren't laws. And there *you* have it. Boo hoo.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 7:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        You're funny. All your replies actually prove you know nothing about technology. You're probably just trolling because you need attention. Now go back to slashdot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 7:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Or the contract you have with your ISP (TOS AND AUP). *sigh* More technologically ignorant people trying to sound intelligent. You should run for some sort of political party.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Not really. I make living from this stuff everyday. I wouldn't hire you. Ever.
        
        No, you can't. IP addresses (and even associated MAC addresses) don't identify people. It is the technically ignorant who believe otherwise. So people who designed networks are ignorant. The little troll on TD knows best.
        
        It's called logging and MAC addresses... blah blah blah
        
        None of which gives your "location", as you claimed. WiFi *can* reach many miles. My own WiFi signal covers several street addresses. To put it in simple terms for you, it could be in use at any of them. Is that so hard to understand? So which door should the cops kick in? Now, please, stop making stuff up..
        
        Wait what? First, you tell him to stop making stuff, yet you blatantly lie in the same phrase. Your own signal? haha. Right. Either it's a corporate one (you couldn't afford it with your troll salary) or it's a plain and simple ignorant lie. And about location, it'll give you the location of the AP, who is, according to his CONTRACT SIGNED WITH THE ISP, responsible for the traffic.
        
        Says who? You? The guy who doesn't even understand networking?Still assuming you're a simply idiotic troll with no IQ, read up your AUP and TOS. You'll probably need a lawyer to explain to you the big lines of the contract, and the legality of it all, because you obviously like to create your own interpretation of data.
        
        Oh, there you go, pulling out the old, tired, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide" line. That's been debunked so many times I'm not even going to wast my time with it. And now you put words in his mouth just so you could spout out that same tired argument. See it's not so hard to debunk other's ridiculous claims, especially when they're made by a troll that has nothing better to do.
        
        Boohoo. Keep crying that you door gets knocked down because you're aiding pedophiles. You're the one that'll be locked up. In the end, your lack of IQ and your sheer stupidity will by your downfall. And we'll point and laugh.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 11:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Pft. Signal boosting is old, old tech. If I wanted to slap another 20 watts of power on my wifi, it would be dead simple for me to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        And about location, it'll give you the location of the AP, who is, according to his CONTRACT SIGNED WITH THE ISP, responsible for the traffic.
        
        What exactly does that have to do with the police?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        I wouldn't hire you. Ever.
        
        Your loss.
        
        So people who designed networks are ignorant.
        
        You think so? Me thinks then that it is you who is showing his ignorance.
        
        Wait what? First, you tell him to stop making stuff, yet you blatantly lie in the same phrase. Your own signal? haha. Right. Either it's a corporate one (you couldn't afford it with your troll salary) or it's a plain and simple ignorant lie.
        
        Wow. Talk about lying, there you go...
        
        Still assuming you're a simply idiotic troll with no IQ, read up your AUP and TOS. You'll probably need a lawyer to explain to you the big lines of the contract, and the legality of it all, because you obviously like to create your own interpretation of data. ...blah blah blah...
        
        Sigh. Typical authoritarian IP supporter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        And about location, it'll give you the location of the AP, who is, according to his CONTRACT SIGNED WITH THE ISP, responsible for the traffic.
        
        Huh? Do you even know what an AP is (in network terms)? It's an "access point". That's a device, *not* a person (who). And you really believe that a device is "responsible"? Really? Well, I'll just let your ignorance speak for itself. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Unless you start spoofing your MAC (which no one ever does except more tech savvy people trying to hack the wireless), then you can get caught.
        
        Huh. I spoof a new MAC address every boot-up, especially if I am connecting to a public hotspot. Just on general privacy principles.
        
        It's the same for "open" VPNs. You offer them for free (or a small free). You own the service. You rent it. You are responsible for traffic going through it.
        
        Well, if you are using a VPN service that doesn�t keep address logs based in a country that doesn't require address logs, then your trail is pretty damn hard to follow at that point.
        
        I'm sure if you go to your ISP's website and read their AUP and TOS, they WILL tell you that you're responsible for 100% of traffic going to your IPs
        
        You are probably right, somewhere way, way down deep in that TOS wall of text, that no one ever reads, it probably does say that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 8:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Ignorance is no excuse. Ask *any* judge, in *any* civilized country. You're playing on ignorance as a defense. You'll lose hands down.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 11:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        TOS isn't law. The TOS can be used to remove you from a network, but does not make you legally responsible for the traffic on your network.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 8:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Ignorance is no excuse. Ask *any* judge, in *any* civilized country. You're playing on ignorance as a defense. You'll lose hands down.
        
        I am not using ignorance of the law as a defense of anything. This is a TOS, not a law. Show me a law that states I am responsible for traffic on my ISP connection.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 8:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Huh. I spoof a new MAC address every boot-up, especially if I am connecting to a public hotspot. Just on general privacy principles. Yet if you follow what the super god-like technology engineer above stated, it's completely pointless. So why do it? Especially if you have nothing to hide? *sigh*
        
        See how your argumentation works now. Not guilty if I use it,. not guilty if I don't. It's a really nice spin. I'm not against TOR or other anonymity networks/software/etc. However the arguments here are ridiculous. "Why use it if you have nothing to hide?" is a little tiresome. However, it works both ways. And no one is argumenting that. You're all (most of you) sold to the idea that we absolutely need anonymity, otherwise the universe will implode. There are consequences. And this was one.
        
        Now why not leave the police a chance to investigate further? Why is everyone coming to astonishing conclusions?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Yet if you follow what the super god-like technology engineer above stated, it's completely pointless. So why do it? Especially if you have nothing to hide? *sigh*
        
        But, I do have something to protect - my privacy. Making law enforcement's job easier at the expense of personal privacy is not a compromise I am willing to make.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 8:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        MAC addresses can be easily changed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:25pm
    
    Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
    If you don't mind enabling and being investigated for child porn!
    
    I saw a photo of guy arrested for kiddy porn the other day and he was wearing glasses, obviously so that he could *see* the porn. Let's arrest the optometrists that enable these guys to see kiddy porn!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 8:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
      Then let's arrest you too. You have eyes. They're used to watch kiddy porn. You're so far off besides the point that it's not even funny anymore. -10 for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
        Your sarcasm detector is apparently broken, maybe you should have that looked at.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Tor is the future of piracy!
    I've read rumors that the CIA uses Tor to phone home, plays an active role in it's development, and runs a few relays & exit nodes. If it works good for dissidents in China and Iran it should work good for spies. That isn't the law enforcement interest you're speaking of though is it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:16pm
  
  Re:
  Maybe there is a price to be paid for enabling diddlers and perverts to access kiddie porn. Just a thought. Free speech, free speech, rah, rah, rah!!!!
  
  Did you really just suggest that anyone who enables a tool that has helped dissidents around the world stay safe need to "pay the price" of being accused of helping kiddie porn? You're a sick, sick individual.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You're a sick, sick individual.
    
    Probably a copyright maximalist as well. Of course, I realize that calling someone a copyright maximalist and a sick individual is redundant.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:40pm
    
    Losing argument.
    If you want to argue that the anonimity of a small number of foreign dissidents (there are only about 1000 Chinese users of Tor, for example) is more important than being able to enforce child porn laws, you are welcome to do so.
    
    FYI, you will be slaughtered in the propaganda war when the time comes.
    
    There is only one Internet issue I know that gets the average 40-70 year old voter riled up and ready for blood, and that is child porn.
    
    Fortunately for you, you don't have much to worry about. Tor is not yet the target of any significant legal interest. Yet.
    
    When that changes, and it will, I can guarantee which way public opinion will face. It won't be in favor of the pedophiles (or the 'political dissidents').
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:47pm
      
      You need help...
      WTF is wrong with you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:53pm
      
      Re: Losing argument.
      If you want to argue that the anonimity of a small number of foreign dissidents (there are only about 1000 Chinese users of Tor, for example) is more important than being able to enforce child porn laws, you are welcome to do so.
      
      There are more than that number of dissidents using Tor in the US alone and globally there are millions using it. Very few use it for child porn.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Losing argument.
      "Its better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man goes to prison"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Losing argument.
        "Its better that 10 infringers go to prison than 1 song is copied for free."
        
        -- copyright maximalist
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Losing argument.
        "Its better that 10 innocent-but-accused infringers go to prison than 1 song is copied for free."
        
        Fixed it for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:17pm
      
      Re: Losing argument.
      There is only one Internet issue I know that gets the average 40-70 year old voter riled up and ready for blood, and that is child porn.
      
      Two errors.
      
      1)
      
      It really should have read
      "There is only one Internet issue I know that can easily distract the vast majority of mouth breathers from anything really important and that is shouting child porn about anything you don't like."
      Mouth breathers ears perk up, realise they don't like child porn, for some reason assume everyone else thinks it's just the business and prepares to behave irrationally about something they don't understand.
      
      2) Actually there are lots of internet issues that get the mouthbreathers riled up, the only thing these issues have in common is that they are used to distract from important issues.
      
      Cry child porn to avoid actually dealing with child abuse whilst trampling all over ordinary freedoms.
      
      Cry terrorism to avoid actually dealing with terrorism while performing security theatre or committing acts against international law.
      
      Cry IP rights generate ideas and new technology while trampling all over anyone who tries to develop new ideas or to use technology in new and innovative ways.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:50am
        
        Re: Re: Losing argument.
        *Tips Hat*
        +1 Internets to you good sir, whomever you may be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:03pm
      
      Re: Losing argument.
      "There is only one Internet issue I know that gets the average 40-70 year old voter riled up and ready for blood, and that is child porn."
      
      What is "child porn" anyway?
      
      The pic my mother has of myself and my sister as kids taking a bath together?
      
      Please define.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Losing argument.
      When that changes, and it will, I can guarantee which way public opinion will face. It won't be in favor of the pedophiles (or the 'political dissidents').
      
      What the hell? Why would you even imply that favoring pedophiles is a direction public opinion could ever possibly go? Or that it's on the table, or anyone here is in favor of it? Come back when you're ready to make a real argument rather than attempting to smear privacy advocacy with the pedophilia label. We don't need that kind of dishonesty here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re:
  Maybe there is a price to be paid for enabling diddlers and perverts to access kiddie porn. Just a thought. Free speech, free speech, rah, rah, rah!!!!
  
  Then why didn't they seize all the equipment of the ISP?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because the ISP is just a relayer in the chain, not the person or machine sending or receiving the files.
    
    Either the country in question doesn't recognize the idea of a common carrier, or the police failed to realize they were essentially dealing with one. You don't seize an AT&T backbone server because someone downloaded kiddy porn through it. You don't seize a TOR exit node for the same reason.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You don't seize an AT&T backbone server because someone downloaded kiddy porn through it.
      
      To be fair, a backbone is not also a workstation that someone might use to download kiddy porn, while a Tor exit node is (if I understand it correctly).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 11:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To be fair, a backbone is not also a workstation that someone might use to download kiddy porn, while a Tor exit node is (if I understand it correctly).
        
        To be fair, a backbone is basically composed of specialized computers with network connections between them (usually high speed). Not only can those computers be used to access and download material, they can spoof just about any address in their domain, making them virtually untraceable.
        
        Perhaps you should refrain from making statements about things you don't understand.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're saying somebody would sit down at a backbone server, fire up a web browser, and surf some porn? I'm going to need a citation on that, because I'm very skeptical of that claim.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're saying somebody would sit down at a backbone server, fire up a web browser, and surf some porn?
        
        I'm saying that someone *could*. I not pointing the finger at anyone in particular and saying that they *would*. And your education is not my responsibility.
        
        I'm going to need a citation on that, because I'm very skeptical of that claim.
        
        What you *need* is to quit popping off about stuff you obviously don't know about. If you want to know the details of network communications, there are plenty of schools you can go enroll in, but your education is not my responsibility.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Spaceboy (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  What's a diddler? And how is that different from a pervert?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    From urbandictionary.com:
    
    1. diddler 157 up, 40 down
    
    "One who thinks sexually unlawful things about children. Derived from "kiddy diddler". One doesn't actually have to touch a child to be a diddler. Anyone who promotes, is involved in, or looks at child pornography, can be considered a diddler."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re:
  You know, those of who actually investigate kiddie porn sites think you're an idiot.
  
  The people involved in this are far, FAR more clever and secretive than you think they are. The experienced ones aren't going to get caught by the police in any country, because they're far more intelligent and technically sophisticated than the police. They may get caught by people like me, because my expertise is superior to theirs; but that means very little as I'm NOT the police and have authority to do anything to them.
  
  They're not going to impeded (or caught) by seizure of a Tor node, nor by seizure of a thousand of them. That's because they're using YOUR computer, if you are one of the 200 million or so people out there who no longer have effective control of their own hardware. So when YOUR door gets kicked down and YOU get busted for the kiddie porn on YOUR computer, you can lead the cheers for wildly-enthusiastic, but utterly clueless and hopelessly inept police actions like the one in this story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 5:04pm
  
  Re:
  "Maybe there is a price to be paid for enabling diddlers and perverts to access kiddie porn."
  
  You mean, for example, like providing internet access? Selling digital cameras? Producing electricity? Teaching people how to read, write and use keyboards? Having children?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jun 2011 @ 2:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Maybe there is a price to be paid for enabling diddlers and perverts to access kiddie porn."
    
    You mean, for example, like providing internet access? Selling digital cameras? Producing electricity? Teaching people how to read, write and use keyboards? Having children?
    
    Yes! All of those things!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 11:17pm
  
  Re:
  By that "logic" the entire internet should be shut down, since it would apply equally to backbone servers as it would to exit nodes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:54pm

Answer:
"...but the big question is how difficult is it to explain to the police what tor is, what an exit node is, why such things are perfectly legal, and why this means they're looking in the wrong place?"
They don't care. If you can be persecuted, er, I mean prosecuted and it will appear to be a victory for the "good" guys to the ignorant masses, then it's a win for the "good" guys regardless of the reality of the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Christopher (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re: Answer:
  Persecution is the word for this. I know that some people dislike pedosexuality, but the fact is that it is a normal sexuality like any other (that doesn't involve drugging or physically forcing someone into sex) and it's simply time to legalize it and bring it out into the open.
  
  I saw this SAME EXACT BULLCRAP, as did my uncle who is 40 years older than me, with blacks having sex with whites, homosexuality and heterosexuality outside of marriage at one time.
  
  It's just an attempt to create a boogie man to gull the masses into supporting politicians and others who are 'hard on deviants' (of which there is really no such thing).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Answer:
    You think people "dislike" child rape which you wish to term "pedosexuality".
    
    Bullcrap is the only word to describe your view.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Answer:
      You want to play that card? LEgally speaking, in the UK, a 16-year-old who has consensual sex with a 14-year-old is a paedophile. So you want to tar those people with the same as serial paedosexual rapists?
      
      Nice work, asshat.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:32pm
    
    From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
    Great to see such a strong showing from the pedophilia apologists here on Techdirtbag. Not surprising that they're an important and vibrant constituency here Masnick. Yes, it's quite a group of supporters you have assembled here, Mike. Sickening perverts who describe adult sexual exploitation as "normal sexuality" and advocates that it should be legalized. I note that Chris is an insider too!! Wow, Masnick maybe you should have your blog linked to the NAMBLA website, unless it already is.
    
    hahahaha. Just when I thought you Techdirtbags couldn't be any slimier you hand me this gift.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:45pm
      
      Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
      Great to see such a strong showing from the pedophilia apologists here on Techdirtbag. Great to see such a strong showing from the pedophilia apologists here on Techdirtbag. Not surprising that they're an important and vibrant constituency here Masnick. Yes, it's quite a group of supporters you have assembled here, Mike. Sickening perverts who describe adult sexual exploitation as "normal sexuality" and advocates that it should be legalized. I note that Chris is an insider too!! Wow, Masnick maybe you should have your blog linked to the NAMBLA website, unless it already is.
      
      Your level of desperation is telling. Because one idiot posts in support of such things it's a "showing." Hell, we've got more folks posting from your position of industry apologist/protectionist. Does that mean we support your position?
      
      And, no, the person who posted such a claim is not an insider.
      
      Are you so desperate that you can only resort to lying?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
        oops, you're right, not an insider. Damn, what next: posting a list of Senators supporting a bill who are no longer in office?
        
        BTW I don't see any so-called "copyright maximalists" advocate for sexual relations between adults and children. That position seems to be the exclusive property of the anti-IP/free speech extremists here on Techdirtbag. What's even more shameful is the sickening demonstration of tolerance on your blog for that sort of vile conduct.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
        Funny, because you resort to using child porn as a talking point to further you desperate (and false) argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chris Rhodes (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
        Your sample size of one is very persuasive.
        
        If the recording industry is relying on you for their charts and statistics, no wonder their profits are hurtling towards the ground at break-neck speed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
        BTW I don't see any so-called "copyright maximalists" advocate for sexual relations between adults and children.
        
        Copyright maximalists just try to screw kids in different ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
        oops, you're right, not an insider
        
        Facts aren't your strong suit, are they?
        
        BTW I don't see any so-called "copyright maximalists" advocate for sexual relations between adults and children.
        
        Nor do we see copyright minimalists. Why associate two things that have no such association? If you want to bet that there are pedophiles who are also copyright maximalists, I'm sure such things exist. But would we make a blanket statement connecting the two? Of course not.
        
        Why would you?
        
        That position seems to be the exclusive property of the anti-IP/free speech extremists here on Techdirtbag
        
        Only if you're too stupid to recognize that on the open internet people can say what they want.
        
        What's even more shameful is the sickening demonstration of tolerance on your blog for that sort of vile conduct
        
        Oh grow up. We allow open comments, and what happened? Within about 10 minutes of that comment getting posted, it was reported and downgraded.
        
        Of course, you and your friends never see such comments, because on your sites *you don't allow open comments*. We don't "tolerate" such comments. We find them equally sickening and have said so many times in the past.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:53pm
      
      Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
      I have no intention of getting into an age of consent argument, but I do want to give you a warning.
      
      Since you're so gung-ho about painting everyone with the same wide brush, you may want to watch what you paint. You're actively associating with said group; if you get your way, you will be up on the chopping block for association.
      
      Remember the "Red Scare"? Remember what the US did with Japanese citizens during WWII? It happened before, it's not a stretch for it to happen again. We fight to prevent that, and we will fight to protect even you against that. So just remember who your lumping in with the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-A-likes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
        Remember the "Red Scare"? Remember what the US did with Japanese citizens during WWII? It happened before, it's not a stretch for it to happen again.
        
        Like the holocaust and countless other myths of government wrong doing, those things never happened. Now move along.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
        "Like the holocaust and countless other myths of government wrong doing, those things never happened. Now move along"
        
        Pardon my French so to speak, but.....
        WHAT THE FUCK!?!?
        
        Are you honestly so stupid and ignorant as to believe that The Holocaust, The Red Scare(s), and The Japanese-American Internment never actually happened?
        
        You sir(or madam) have pegged my idiot meter. I congratulate you, I didn�t know anyone with an IQ that low was actually capable of coherent speech let alone the ability to read and use a computer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - weneedhelp (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:42pm
      
      Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
      I have achieved dirtbag on many levels, and assuming it is only tech related is insulting.
      
      "just when I thought you Techdirtbags" - Another AC that is a legend in his own mind.
      
      "pedophilia apologists" Plural - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural
      
      I see only one, which this community quickly jumped on. No pun intended.
      
      Blue box AC - king of fail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 2:55am
      
      Re: From The Diddlers-And-Perverts Department
      Just when I thought you Techdirtbags couldn't be any slimier you hand me this gift.
      
      What gift? You've easily shown what an utter stupid f*ckwhat you are and that none of those "accusations" you're pulling out of your ass will stick. EVER.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Answer:
    Christopher: please seek immediate medical attention. You need serious help.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - asdf, 18 Jan 2012 @ 12:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Answer:
    You've got to be kidding me. 'Pedo' sexuality is a form of deviance, and it puts children at risk.
    
    All children deserve their innocence , and deserve to be defended from malicious predators.
    
    While I understand that some people are 'born' with deviant sexual natures, there is NOTHING that forces someone to download images of children being abused. This is a disgusting choice.
    
    Pedophilia should absolutely remain illegal, despite attempts by the elite to 'normalize' it.
    
    We should always strive to protect our children from abuse in any just and righteous society. Cloaking child exploitation in the vague language of 'human rights' doesn't change the facts... that any pedophile that acts on his impulses is contributing to the abuse and exploitation of children.
    
    Pedophilia is morally wrong and disgusting and no amount of politically correct nonsense will change that fact.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 12:55pm

A Valid Concern
That was my reason for not setting up my high bandwidth computer as a Tor exit node. I would probably beat any charge in court, but it would be expensive and could screw up my security clearance (and by association, my job).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: A Valid Concern
  That was my reason for not setting up my high bandwidth computer as a Tor exit node. I would probably beat any charge in court, but it would be expensive and could screw up my security clearance (and by association, my job).
  
  Fear and chilling effects. I'm sure that those who would take away freedom appreciate your compliance. You set a fine example.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael Long (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re: A Valid Concern
    Easy to say, posting as a Coward.
    
    How about setting up your own Tor exit server? And then, perhaps, down the road we can read a story about your arrest and presumed innocence.
    
    The problem isn't with Chris. The problem lies with the people who abuse the Tor system and twist it to their own ends.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Queen of England, 31 May 2011 @ 3:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A Valid Concern
      Easy to say, posting as a Coward.
      
      Says the other anonymous coward. What a hypocrite.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Michael Long (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A Valid Concern
        WTF? I'm logged in. That's my name on the post. Deal with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Queen of England, 31 May 2011 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Valid Concern
        WTF? I'm logged in. That's my name on the post. Deal with it.
        
        And I'm The Queen of England.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 11:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Valid Concern
        Bad enough the discussion was going towards paedophilia. Let's keep homosexuality free of such ignorance, shall we?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:59pm
    
    Re: Re: A Valid Concern
    Fear and chilling effects. I'm sure that those who would take away freedom appreciate your compliance. You set a fine example.
    
    For better or for worse, I have a lot to lose. I try to subvert the system in other ways, when I can. ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Christopher (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:04pm

The fact is that the police need to realize that exit node /= to a specific person, and the exit node isn't going to help much if they are trying to get someone for trading 'child pornography' (which honestly I have no problem with and think it should be legal, same with pedosexuality in general).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B. (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think you need to bring a pro-pedophilia argument to a discussion about how network packets are distributed. It will only serve to harm the purpose of us who want a free and neutral internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Too late. The freak has given valuable insights into the mindset of and the lengths to which the anti-IP/free speech extremists will go to argue their point. Utterly revolting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Too late. The freak has given valuable insights into the mindset of and the lengths to which the anti-IP/free speech extremists will go to argue their point. Utterly revolting
      
      The only thing revolting is that you would take a single comment from a sick individual on this site and associate it with the views of this site.
      
      However, because you have NO REAL argument, this is what you stoop to.
      
      You are a sick, sick individual.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So anti-IP now = pedophiles, because one person on the internet believes in both.
      
      The troll is strong with this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - D. Hope-Ross (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'd like to see you offer something substantive and intelligible to support your claim that tor and, by extension, anonymous webbrowsing should be illegal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The Soviet Union was a big fan of mandatory copyright - so you're a communist, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The freak has given valuable insights into the mindset of and the lengths to which the anti-IP/free speech extremists will go to argue their point.
      
      Using child porn as a tool to further your agenda... how does it feel when you look in the mirror? To know you're attempting to benefit from others' appetite for child pornography?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- iamtheky (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  Thats how you effin troll! this thread didnt stand a chance after that bomb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re:
  Christopher, since no one has yet attempted to say this to you directly yet....please figure out the quickest way to acquire the most lethal form of cancer and take a dirt nap.
  
  Anyone who could make such blanketly idiotic statements like saying pedosexuality should be legal and that they have no problem with child pornography is someone so devoid of any normalcy as to be unuseful here.
  
  So, go away. Permanently. And I'll be here to shout down every single one of your disgusting pro-child-sex posts, you creepy dung heap....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    hear, hear...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well said.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Boyo, 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hmm, I do wonder sometimes, considering the venom that goes around whenever the subject is brought up, how many of you fellows have done some serious reading on pedophilia? Wikipedia has a decent article to start, might want to also read up on human sexuality in general too (Check for sources though). Doing so could help some of you come up with something more constructive and quite possibly, convincing than "Contract cancer and die!" (Well, helmet, your version is more eloquent I'd have to say) Writing someone off like that will only serve to worsen the problem, par the course I guess...
    
    If you're interested, my stance on the subject is, generally, until someone acts physically on his or her urges, there really is no problem. (Psychologically/physically damaging/hurting a person in the process. This, for me, includes "real" images and such, though not those drawn/written or otherwise devised from the realm of "Fantasy") What someone does with their imagination is of no consequence to me, even if it makes me want to puke. If it is of consequence to you, than well, why?
    
    Also, sick individual? More likely uninformed, misguided, ignorant... Not sick. This could also be said for the one saying he's sick, then again, it's not like any one of us has an omni-potent intellect... Sorry, generalizing too much.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 8:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you're interested, my stance on the subject is, generally, until someone acts physically on his or her urges, there really is no problem... What someone does with their imagination is of no consequence to me, even if it makes me want to puke.
      
      I don't think anyone's objecting to anyone's fantasy. The "venom" is reserved for actual children being mistreated.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2011 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pedophilia is the only topic where presumption of innocence is turned upside down. Call me a pedophile even without any proof, and it takes lot off effort to wash off this dirt off my name.
      
      And indeed part of the problem that people tend to mix mental malady of being aroused with children and enabling abuse by consuming child pornography. The latter deserves punishment and/or and treatment, the former - mercy and tolerance.
      
      There is a third class derived from intolerant and cruel laws. For example, me and my girl were in love since we were 16. I'm 2 month older than her. There was a 2-month period when I was a pedophile, then I suddenly became normal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 6 Jun 2011 @ 9:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For example, me and my girl were in love since we were 16. I'm 2 month older than her. There was a 2-month period when I was a pedophile, then I suddenly became normal.
        
        Most jurisdictions require one party to be underage and the other to be both over the age of consent and also more than a certain amount older than the other party (such as two years older) for statutory rape.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 12:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Most jurisdictions require one party to be underage and the other to be both over the age of consent and also more than a certain amount older than the other party (such as two years older) for statutory rape.
        
        But not all, obviously, as pointed out by the parent post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what comes out of his keyboard is unquestioned truth, but I need to learn before popping off uninformed nonsense? Nice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:06pm

Smart move. You couldn't pay me to operate a Tor exit node. Child porn makes up a very significant percent of the traffic.

This has happened before.

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/03/19/passion-and-dalliance-blog-why-you-ne ed-balls-of-steel-to-operate-a-tor-exit-nod.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  You couldn't pay me to operate a Tor exit node.
  
  Fear. That's exactly the way they want people to respond: with fear.
  
  Whoever is responsible for this raid should be taken out and strung up, along with anyone that was cheering them on. Turn the fear around the other way and see how quickly stuff like this stops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:26pm

Problem: A terrorist drives a car through a toll booth, and is about to get away.
Solution: Arrest the toll booth operator. Ignore the terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 7:25am
  
  Re:
  I voted you insightful.
  
  The solution is insightful because catching the toll booth operator is much easier than catching the terrorist speeding away. It is cost efficient. Saves tax dollars. Allows law enforcement to get back to whatever they were doing before being rudely interrupted by a terrorist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:29pm

So they captured all the equipment of the tor exit node...

I wonder if they bothered to go after the site hosting the material, or is that just too much work.

Nearly every report I see about child porn they are confiscating equipment and arresting some individual person for getting/having the material. I never see 'child porn production facility shut down when police...'.

Almost makes a person think they don't care about the kids, but just want to have an easy target that can generate headlines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:34pm
  
  Re:
  The standard argument I hear in response to that is "The source is usually in another country and outside the US control."
  
  Valid point, but not a reason to arrest someone running a simple proxy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:44pm
  
  Re:
  Nearly every report I see about child porn they are confiscating equipment and arresting some individual person for getting/having the material. I never see 'child porn production facility shut down when police...'.
  
  From what I've read, the police operate a lot of the child pron sites themselves as stings. Should they arrest themselves?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Doesn't sound like CIA East. Let me check with CIA West."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:28am
  
  Re:
  Would it be too cynical to suggest that if they shut down the producers, they wouldn't have any more child porn to go after, while they can always have an endless stream of consumers to arrest?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:45pm

Or will law enforcement just avoid all these details and assume that running a tor exit node is proof of guilt?

Given that things technical are becoming less understood by the average person, I expect guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  I expect guilty until proven innocent.
  You're an optimist. The opportunity to prove innocence is already gone as far as the court of public opinion is concerned. Once accused of breaking child porn laws, you will forever be haunted by that accusation no matter how innocent you can prove yourself to be. Look up Sean Lanigan some time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:49pm

It's absolutely amazing that you can't talk about something such as Tor without someone trying to color the conversation negatively with emotion charged words such as "child porn"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  You should have chat with Christopher about that
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...
    
    There are just some things you don't touch with a 10 foot pole...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually you're the one who won't shut up about it. Just sayin'
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:50pm

Running a Tor node is pretty much and admission of wanting to help people to hide their identity and to obtain what they cannot legally obtain by direct methods.

By definition, Tor is a tool to hide or to bypass legal restrictions put in place.

Anyone running a Tor node knows they are aiding semi-legal or illegal actions. It is the risk you take when you decide to help people get around the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re:
  Running a Tor node is pretty much and admission of wanting to help people to hide their identity and to obtain what they cannot legally obtain by direct methods.
  
  Like freedom, eh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  And yet, the US Government used it for a while. Are they terrorists and paedophiles too?
  
  No?
  
  Hypocrite.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - joelbradshaw (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Some of them..
    (I live in DC, I should know). :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re:
  "Running a Tor node is... [helping] people to hide their [identities] and to obtain what they cannot legally obtain by direct methods.
  
  Cannot or choose not to, but let that pass. Note that "legally obtain by direct methods" is not the same as "legally obtain".
  
  By definition, Tor is a tool to hide or to bypass legal restrictions put in place.
  
  Interesting choice of words. Note that "bypassing legal restrictions" does not necessarily mean breaking the law. (Those who think about "anti-circumvention" will understand this at once.)
  
  "Anyone running a Tor node knows they are aiding semi-legal or illegal actions. It is the risk you take when you decide to help people get around the law."
  
  [YAWN] This argument works just as well if you replace "Tor node" with "classified ad column", "telephone network", "car rental agency", "bar", "sports team", "hardware store", etc., etc., etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re:
  I think what you're saying is "if you've got nothing to hide, what are you complaining about?"
  
  Yawn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 1:50pm

Tor was originally developed by the U.S. government. That should tell you all you need to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 1:58pm

so we have

torrent == crime
tor == crime

Any other tools we should add to the list?

or maybe it's just
*tor* == crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re:
  If the blue square AC has any say in it:
  
  * == crime
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HothMonster, 31 May 2011 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re:
  oh no at this rate my tortoise will be illegal by the end of the decade and no more tortillas!!! just kill me now
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 31 May 2011 @ 3:11pm
  
  Re:
  being human == crime
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Shill, 31 May 2011 @ 2:02pm

As a believer in strong copyright, it fills my heart with gladness to see these kiddie porn pirates prosecuted. Only the original creator of kiddie porn should have the legal right to distribute their content. As we've said all along, if content is allowed to be stolen for free on the internet, creators will have no incentive to create more content! Kiddie porn is no exception.

A strong respect for copyright demands strong protection for kiddie porn creators. The two are inextricably linked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, those copyright maximalists; always supporting the kiddie porn.
  
  Disgusting pervs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re:
  "As we've said all along, if content is allowed to be stolen for free on the internet, creators will have no incentive to create more content! Kiddie porn is no exception."
  
  Holy crap, that actually makes sense! So those who argue that new content will not be created without copyright must concede that we could put an end to this kind of horrible exploitation just by allowing the existing material to be copied and distributed freely!
  
  (Note: what I have written is a logical statement; please do not take me to task for it unless you can think about this topic in logical terms and criticize my logic accordingly. I have no desire engage in religious bickering or its mental equivalents.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, I think the rebuttal is clear: your logic solves half of the problem but exacerbates the other half. Stopping the production of child porn is, certainly, the number one priority - but keeping it out of circulation and getting the people who seek it the help they need is a very close second.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How does suppressing the material provide people with the help they need? And if they get that help, surely the circulation with dry up for lack of demand, so why worry about the material itself (apart from visceral revulsion at the idea that it's out there)?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, when it comes to many forms of addiction (in both psychological and physical terms) controlling availability is a valid and usually important part of any strategy. For example, many cities would benefit hugely from opening more rehabilitation and support centres for meth and heroin addicts, but not if they let the drugs flow freely at the same time.
        
        Obviously child porn is different - cutting off the creation of new drugs would eliminate them from circulation as well - but what I'm drawing from this is that making something widely available is not a good way to combat it. Though I guess am straying slightly from logic when I say that my gut tells me any strategy that starts with "allow child porn to be traded freely" is not a good one...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (plus, I expect the logic to catch up to my gut once I think it through fully)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (If it doesn't then you will have a tough choice to make.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Between following my gut and sanctioning the free exchange of child pornography?
        
        Not so tough.
        
        Besides, if the goal is to eliminate production and consumption of child pornography, and you are asserting that this is accomplished by legalizing the exchange and possession of child pornography, then I think the burden of walking through the logic falls on you...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I made no such assertion, and the choice is between A) rationalizing and B) following reason even when it leads to unpalatable conclusions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Reason is rarely rock-solid in a chaotic system full of variables we don't understand and can't measure - like say the human brain, or the sociological landscape of modern western civilization. I am a firm adherent to reason and empiricism, and part of that means knowing how to recognize and admit it when you don't have enough information to draw firm conclusions. This is why social science is a liberal art...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fuzzy thinking. First, I am unconvinced that addiction is a useful model for pedophilia. Second, there is a world of difference between an addict deprived and an addict abstaining. Third, rehabilitation/support is valuable even when something is freely available, as we see with alcohol. Fourth, there is an important difference between abusing a child and merely handling records (or fictional depictions) of such acts, which we lose sight of if we use phrases like "combat it" carelessly.
        
        And there's plenty of stuff for sale that turns my stomach, but I've learned to live with it-- astrology, Japanese pop music, celebrity gossip mags... I wish there were no demand for such garbage, but I must not let my gut lead my brain into faulty reasoning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The alcohol point is a good one. And yes, I should clarify that I am talking about actual sexual depictions of real children - not some of the things that lie around the fringe like stories or artwork (I have heard the arguments that allowing and even encouraging fantasies of this nature can actually alleviate the urge - and I think there is a lot to consider there. But that's a separate discussion.)
        
        So if we are talking about the records of such acts as you put it, the core question is threefold: 1) would making the existing pornography freely available eliminate the production of more? and 2) what other ramifications would this have? (are we sure it would reduce instances of actual sexual abuse?) and 3) where are we drawing the purely moral line?
        
        See, that's the thing - despite your desire to stick to logic, this is a moral question, because it is a moral decision in the first place to say that producing child pornography, or even sex with children, is wrong (many people throughout history and today have taken the firm moral stance that it isn't, though I wouldn't like to meet any of them). So since we are all agreeing that the sexual abuse of children is wrong, can we not also say that allowing anyone people to sexually indulge in depictions of it is wrong too? It bears some similarity to arguments over the use of medical discoveries made by Nazi doctors - an emotionally heated topic to be sure - but with other big differences too.
        
        But still, while "what's done is done?" is a pretty rock-solid logical statement, you could take this to a whole new level by considering the logic of a society's moral standards and the psychological role they play with, ultimately, real and measurable impacts. I dunno, it's a big topic, and my main point is that I don't think the logic is quite as clear-cut as you make it out to be (elementary logic is a handy tool when you want to get right to the point while missing a million other points)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To recap, we can agree that 1) relying entirely on logic -- or going clean against it -- is dumb, 2) we're talking about actual recordings of real child molestation (and those who broaden the definition are just clouding the issue), 3) child molestation is super bad, and should not be permitted, and 4) nobody's yet presented solid evidence about what suppression of porn does to rates of child abuse either way, but it's safe to say that total liberalization or annihilation of one would NOT lead to the complete cessation of the other.
        
        "So since we are all agreeing that the sexual abuse of children is wrong, can we not also say that allowing anyone... to sexually indulge in depictions of it is wrong too?"
        
        No. It's nasty, but it harms no one and thoughts are free (I feel very strongly about that). War is horrible, but if my neighbors get worked up into patriotic/xenophobic zeal watching archival footage of the carnage at Midway... well, it's troubling, but ultimately not my business.
        
        (The only possible rebuttal I can see is that consumption might create a market, which could drive production, sort of like the ivory trade. I have no idea if this is how it works and I don't think solid evidence exists.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No. It's nasty, but it harms no one and thoughts are free (I feel very strongly about that)
        
        I would agree if I felt it was sure that it harms no-one - but I think it is worth considering that the availability of child pornography encourages more actual acts of child molestation. The opposite could also be true. Or, more subtly, you could consider the ripple affects on a society where child pornography is permitted - on its child-rearing methods, its concept of innocence, its inclination towards domination or violence, and the general pride of its citizenry in their own "standards". Though not entirely tangible, these are all very real things that I think play into the logic of it all beyond the simple presence or absence of direct harm caused by child pornography.
        
        In any case, I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion - rationally exploring different facets of a topic by defining its elements, then carefully building consensus where possible, is a damn luxury in a comment thread with Buck Lateral :D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 3:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, I think the rebuttal is clear: your logic solves half of the problem but exacerbates the other half. Stopping the production of child porn is, certainly, the number one priority - but keeping it out of circulation and getting the people who seek it the help they need is a very close second.
      
      According to copyright maximalist theorey, it would cease to exist without copyright protection. How would it be in circulation if it ceased to exist?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Beta (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let's be fair; copyright maximalists say that new material will not come into being without protection, not that existing material will vanish if it is freely copied (although they seem to wish that it would).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:23pm

From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
Yikes, You have censored the your anti-IP/free speech ally, Christopher's nauseating advocacy on behalf of adult-child sexual relations. I guess there really are limits on free speech after all, even here amongst the Techdirtbags. Bravo!! But too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
  If you don't know the difference between censorship and people reporting a comment such that it hides as a default but is still readable, then I think Christopher might need to share his cancer-acquiring device with you....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
  Yikes, You have censored the your anti-IP/free speech ally, Christopher's nauseating advocacy on behalf of adult-child sexual relations. I guess there really are limits on free speech after all, even here amongst the Techdirtbags. Bravo!! But too late
  
  Based on your own logic above, Buck, you've now admitted that you support pedophilia. After all, you now appear to be advocating that no one complain about his speech.
  
  Of course, most of us are smarter than you, and recognize there's a difference between "censorship" and reporting a comment as inappropriate. Yet, if we follow your own logic, it appears that the only person here, besides the sick individual Christopher himself, who is supporting pedophilia, it's you. After all, you claimed that merely supporting his right to speech, we're obviously supporting his views. Yet, here you are supporting his right not even to speak, but not to have his comments downgraded by the community. Thus, by *your own logic* you appear to be the only person here supporting Christopher's claims.
  
  Ergo, via the logic of Buck Lateral, copyright maxismalists support pedophilia.
  
  Of course, that's ridiculous, but I'm just demonstrating the inanity of your own arguments.
  
  Buck, some of us would really enjoy it if someone with your views wanted to have a real discussion on these topics. Your desire to shit all over a forum where people are having a serious discussion on the best way to help creativity and society says an awful lot about you and the people who pay you to spew such bullshit. If you'd like to discuss serious issues seriously, we're happy to have those discussions here. Until then, we have to declare you a sick individual who would stoop so low as to associate a pedophile with totally unrelated views because you know you have no legitimate argument.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 3:43pm
    
    Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
    ^^^^ violating privacy rights by looking up IP addresses.
    
    Oh the irony.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
      ^^^^ thinking IP addresses are private
      
      Oh the fuckwaddery.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
      ^^^^ violating privacy rights by looking up IP addresses.
      
      1. I violated no one's privacy right.
      
      2. I did not look up anyone's IP address. The gravatar next to his name matches with the gravatar next to Buck Lateral's name. Same guy. Anyone could have seen it.
      
      3. Nice try, but massive fail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 6:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        In the future, I'll try to either log in or remember to add my name. I trust by my tone and position, it's not too hard to figure out the author. Plus the little blue doo-hickey should help.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        I trust by my tone and position, it's not too hard to figure out the author.
        
        You admit you are literally the only person pushing your agenda - but we're the lunatic fringe?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 5:44pm
    
    Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
    Jesus Masnick, there are medications that can help you. Please look into it.
    
    "Yikes, You have censored the your anti-IP/free speech ally, Christopher's nauseating advocacy on behalf of adult-child sexual relations. I guess there really are limits on free speech after all, even here amongst the Techdirtbags. Bravo!! But too late"
    
    "Based on your own logic above, Buck, you've now admitted that you support pedophilia. After all, you now appear to be advocating that no one complain about his speech."
    
    Read carefully dipshit. I congratulated Techdirtbag for censoring the free speech of the pervert Christopher. Then you "cleverly" distort that into supporting pedophilia.
    
    "Of course, most of us are smarter than you, and recognize there's a difference between "censorship" and reporting a comment as inappropriate. Yet, if we follow your own logic, it appears that the only person here, besides the sick individual Christopher himself, who is supporting pedophilia, it's you. After all, you claimed that merely supporting his right to speech, we're obviously supporting his views. Yet, here you are supporting his right not even to speak, but not to have his comments downgraded by the community. Thus, by *your own logic* you appear to be the only person here supporting Christopher's claims."
    
    Yes, and there is a difference between censorship and cutting off ad support, payment processing, and DNS listing by US based search engines. Like Christopher's comments can still be read, a rogue website can still be located and monetized. And like Christopher's vile comments, it's now much less apparent and readily available to the public- just as it will be for rogue websites. I applaud what happened to Christopher and I'll be cheering what happens to certain rogue websites 5 minutes after President Obama's signature dries on Te PROTECT IP Act.
    
    "Ergo, via the logic of Buck Lateral, copyright maxismalists support pedophilia.
    
    Of course, that's ridiculous, but I'm just demonstrating the inanity of your own arguments."
    
    Thorazine may be the best place for you to start. Talk to your doctor... soon.
    
    "Buck, some of us would really enjoy it if someone with your views wanted to have a real discussion on these topics. Your desire to shit all over a forum where people are having a serious discussion on the best way to help creativity and society says an awful lot about you and the people who pay you to spew such bullshit."
    
    Masnick, between Chris-The-Diddler, Josh, who thinks the CIA is planting chips in people's brains and the many other dolts, morons, apologists and freeloaders- your characterization of this site engaging in serious discussion borders on fraud. This is an echo chamber of extremist zealotry. I'm happy to pop up now and then and drop the turd of reality in your punchbowl of koolaid. Give me a scholarly rebuttal of the constitutionality of the bill, not shrill, general denouncements of how it violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. Give me something that doesn't make me think you're just another feckless buffoon of a conspiracy theorist off on a copyright jihad.
    
    "If you'd like to discuss serious issues seriously, we're happy to have those discussions here. Until then, we have to declare you a sick individual who would stoop so low as to associate a pedophile with totally unrelated views because you know you have no legitimate argument."
    
    I think it's been made perfectly clear through the unwitting cooperation of Chris-The-Diddler that free speech is not an absolute right and censorship is appropriately used in given circumstances. Techdirtbag was absolutely right to censor this perverts shocking remarks and marginalize and obscure his comments behind a pale pink, barely visible notice. If it was up to me, his remarks would be deleted and he'd be banned from the site. But you're probably too soft for that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Togashi (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 8:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
      Read carefully dipshit. I congratulated Techdirtbag for censoring the free speech of the pervert Christopher. Then you "cleverly" distort that into supporting pedophilia.
      
      Trolling 101: Be sarcastic. Then, when they interpret it as sarcasm, you can claim to have been speaking literally. Or, if they take you literally, you can roast them for not recognizing your sarcasm.
      
      Yes, and there is a difference between censorship and cutting off ad support, payment processing, and DNS listing by US based search engines. Like Christopher's comments can still be read, a rogue website can still be located and monetized. And like Christopher's vile comments, it's now much less apparent and readily available to the public- just as it will be for rogue websites.
      
      If the DHS domain seizures were simply a landing page that hid the content with a message of "This content has been deemed inappropriate and/or potentially infringing by the Department of Homeland Security, click here to see it anyway" then I personally would have less of a problem with it. Requiring a single click isn't anywhere near the same level of hiding something as the DHS seizures.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 8:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        "Read carefully dipshit. I congratulated Techdirtbag for censoring the free speech of the pervert Christopher. Then you "cleverly" distort that into supporting pedophilia."
        
        "Trolling 101: Be sarcastic. Then, when they interpret it as sarcasm, you can claim to have been speaking literally. Or, if they take you literally, you can roast them for not recognizing your sarcasm."
        
        Thanks, I'll try to work that in some time.
        
        "Yes, and there is a difference between censorship and cutting off ad support, payment processing, and DNS listing by US based search engines. Like Christopher's comments can still be read, a rogue website can still be located and monetized. And like Christopher's vile comments, it's now much less apparent and readily available to the public- just as it will be for rogue websites."
        
        "If the DHS domain seizures were simply a landing page that hid the content with a message of "This content has been deemed inappropriate and/or potentially infringing by the Department of Homeland Security, click here to see it anyway" then I personally would have less of a problem with it. Requiring a single click isn't anywhere near the same level of hiding something as the DHS seizures."
        
        Its a matter of degrees. Chris-The -Diddler's vile pro-child porn comments were a minor, local matter. The comments were hidden away behind a hard-to-recognize message. Personally, I would have deleted the comments and banned the pervert entirely. Rogue sites whether distributing infringing content, dispensing phony medication or counterfeit auto parts are a global problem with global reach. It's not just some sick fuck on an obscure blog.
        
        You didn't comment on cutting off their water. Are you OK with that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 8:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        So it's a global matter with global reach, but Canadians shouldn't care about it? You can't open your mouth without contradicting your teeth...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 9:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        Touche Marcus.
        
        It's global in that the websites are outside the reach of US jurisprudence. And those stealing American content are likewise in countries all over the world. It's still US companies and US content we're talking about. Fortunately or unfortunately, nobody really steals Canadian content like they steal US content. If there is discussion of a law dealing with infringing on Canadian content (other than US content produced in Canada) I promise not to meddle in your affairs, OK?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        And we're gonna take your word for it. Yeah, right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 6:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        Oh cut the shit. You know damn well that PROTECT IP has repercussions for Canada and for the whole world. You've admitted it yourself.
        
        Am I so formidable a foe that you feel the need to disqualify me from the debate? I mean yeah, you're flailing around with your pathetic arguments, and it is getting pretty embarrassing so I can see why you want an exit strategy, but resorting too "Whatever, Canadian!" is kind of childish don't you think?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Togashi (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
        I think you might be getting your arguments confused, I didn't see anything about cutting off anybody's water in the post I responded to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
      Then you "cleverly" distort that into supporting pedophilia.
      
      Actually he simply outsmarted you and beat your at you own game. Happens a lot here to dumbtards like you so better get used to it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:03am
  
  Re: From The Techdirtbag-Censorship-Department
  You have censored the your anti-IP/free speech ally
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:43pm

We want it, and they can't stop us. Tor will survive as long as that is true. and when we say information wants to be free, we mean all information.

If the system allows you to pick out the porn, it'll pick out what ever YOU want to keep anonymous, too, regardless of it's current legal status.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 2:52pm

No one's made some clever Tor Johnson reference yet?

TIME FOR GO TO BED!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 3:41pm

Who among you has never illegally downloaded anything? A copyrighted song, album, music video, television show, movie? Let he who is without sin cast the first cyberstone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:54pm
  
  Re:
  Let's not forget any YouTube Videos that have any sort of music playing in the background, including the family singing to grandma on her 90th or little Jimmy's first steps in front of the TV while an episode of The Backyardigans is on. And you can't have ever used any sort of online music streaming service like Seeqpod or Grooveshark, even if you only accessed authorized tracks with it. And you can't have ever posted or shared a link to any of these things either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 3:53pm

There should be reasonable limits on free speech, as has just been demonstrated here. Christopher's disgusting advocacy of child-adult sexual relations has disappeared behind a hidden, light pink notice. Not unlike the effect of the DNS blocking proposal of Protect IP, eh? Free speech is still alive and well after Christopher's censure/censor. Just as it will be when rogue sites are refused payment processing services, ad network support and DNS listing. I honestly don't think piracy apologists are child porn advocates, but this whole episode goes to show that the overheated rhetoric about free speech is way overblown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 3:58pm
  
  Re:
  There is a pretty significant difference. Christopher's comment was put behind that notice based on open voting by all the users. The DNS seizures and the Protect IP legislation permit almost no input from the public, and give near-discretionary power to private businesses with major conflicts of interest.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Christopher's comment was put behind that notice based on open voting by all the users.
    
    Mob justice?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, not mob justice - public input. Call it democracy if you like.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, not mob justice - public input. Call it democracy if you like.
        
        Kind of like how a lynch mob is just democracy in action. Or two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go mind your flock of pedophiles, bo peep
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go mind your flock of pedophiles, bo peep
        
        Huh? What "flock"? Is that your usual method of argument, to accuse people of being pedophiles? People like you are almost as bad as the pedophiles. You're both sick.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, this thread just has me in a bad mood, and now you idiots are trying to compare the entire U.S. legal system to a button on a blog. So fine, I'm sorry (p.s. I don't for a second believe that all five of the ACs responding to me here are actually different people)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So fine, I'm sorry
        
        OK, apology accepted :)
        
        I don't for a second believe that all five of the ACs responding to me here are actually different people
        
        Who ever said they were?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who ever said they were?
        
        Whoever bothered to change their IP address between comments in an attempt to make it look like they were.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Whoever bothered to change their IP address between comments in an attempt to make it look like they were.
        
        What makes you think that was the objective? Usually when that's the case, someone will use different names. An automatically assigned, dynamic IP address is another thing.
        
        You're really on a roll of falsely accusing people of things today, aren't you? And to think, you write articles for Techdirt. Shame.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, you trolls do love false accusations, and sometimes it's fun to fight fire with fire. But you're right, I really shouldn't sink to your level - I'm better than that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        - I'm better than that.
        
        History indicates otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That really sealed my point. Thanks :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 6:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That really sealed my point. Thanks :)
        
        You're welcome. Let me know when you need to be straightened out again. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Heh - what an odd thing to say. How would I possibly 'let you know'? You are a nameless coward who I am still pretty sure rotates his IP address to avoid being identified or held accountable for any of his past comments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 4:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean fascism you vote for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 5:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Huh. I didn't vote. Can you vote to keep it or just disappear it? If not, isn't it like foisting a ballot with only one name on it and calling it a democratic election? Anyway, I don't see how that offers greater protection than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
      
      In any event his disgusting advocacy has no place here and the world would be a better place without Christopher hiding behind the First Amendment to advance his perverted cause.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This whole comparison of Techdirt's reporting system and federal law is a ridiculous canard.
        
        This is the whole POINT of being against government censorship: believing that communities like Techdirt are capable of regulating what goes on within their communities by themselves, instead of relying on some central agency to determine what's okay and what's not.
        
        Christopher being flagged is a perfect example of why government censorship isn't necessary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you vote to keep it or just disappear it?
        
        Just follow the pink instructions that you're complaining about and you get to see it regardless of how many others have voted it down. That's some brutal censorship, huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You keep omitting judicial review and the protections of Rule 65 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure. Other than that you're spot on. Dope.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- aiming4thevoid (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 6:58am
  
  Censorship is not the solution
  There should be reasonable limits on free speech, as has just been demonstrated here.
  
  I don't think so. Last time I checked there were no limits to free speech in either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
  
  From a philological point of view, setting ANY limit set on free expression is the top of a slippery slope ending in complete censorship. Once it has been accepted that anything that is said CAN be restricted from public discourse, then it is a fairly small step to anything that does not further the agenda of the ruling socio-economic group SHOULD be restricted. For examples please go look at China, Zimbabwe, and Saudi Arabia.
  
  From a sociological point of view, denying someone the right to express an idea is the best way of convincing them that they are right. The best way of dealing with ideas of the quality brought forth by Christopher is not to censor his ideas nor to treat him like a pariah, it is to engage him in a discussion where the fallacies of his stance can be exposed and, hopefully, overturned.
  
  The solution to inacceptable or taboo speech is not censorship... it is more speech.
  
  PS: I'm a bit late to the fray, but I believe that this type of ideas need to be conteracted at every turn.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 6:15pm

Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?

In a representative democracy the community is represented by elected officials. They make laws. Law enforcement and the courts take it from there. Who do you think is better representative of the community that is the United States of America? Techdirt? Google?

Interestingly if Chris-The-Diddlers comments were subject to a judicial review instead of that of the Techdirtbags, his loathsome comments would still be here. Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act. Let's face it, the reason that Chris-The-Diddler was dealt with harshly is because his free speech was extraordinarily offensive. Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for. Game, set, match.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2011 @ 6:29pm
  
  Re:
  Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act.
  
  You seem to have confused Techdirt with a government entity. "Due process" doesn't apply to private websites like Techdirt.
  
  Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for.
  
  Really? That's the definition of a "rogue site"? Like a site that lets you post comments for free, instead of making you pay? Like Techdirt?
  
  Game, set, match.
  
  But, for the other side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 6:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act."
    
    "You seem to have confused Techdirt with a government entity. "Due process" doesn't apply to private websites like Techdirt."
    
    I see, do as I say (shrilly I might add) not as I do. Got it.
    
    "Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for."
    
    "Really? That's the definition of a "rogue site"? Like a site that lets you post comments for free, instead of making you pay? Like Techdirt?"
    
    That's what you get simpleton. The definition includes the term 'dedicated to infringing activity' Shit, Masnick ought to pay me for spiking traffic over here at his shithole lunatic asylum.
    
    "Game, set, match."
    
    Not even close Poindexter. By now I'm sure you're having flashbacks to the dodgeball games in high school gym class. PTSD much?
    
    But, for the other side.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I see, do as I say (shrilly I might add) not as I do. Got it.
      
      So in order for private entities to criticize the government, they must first declare that there should be no difference between the private and public sectors? Interesting. You don't believe in the people regulating their government? That seems kind of un-American...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In fact I'm curious, what do you think of the First Amendment? The way I see it, since you oppose 'do as i say not as i do', you only have two choices:
        
        1) Repeal the first amendment entirely, since it doesn't apply to private entities.
        2) Apply the first amendment to the private sector, and make restricting speech illegal
        
        I can't say I like the sound of either of those myself, but whatever floats your boat...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?"
      
      Coming from an american. lol
      
      "I see, do as I say (shrilly I might add) not as I do."
      
      "Canadian Recording Industry Association - EMI Music Canada Inc., Sony Music Entertainment Canada Inc., Universal Music Canada Inc. and Warner Music Canada Co. - agreeing to pay over $50 million to settle claims involving hundreds of thousands of copyright infringements.
      http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5825/125/
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I see, do as I say (shrilly I might add)
      
      That's rich coming from you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Masnick ought to pay me for spiking traffic over here at his shithole lunatic asylum.
      
      Nope, all you'll get is a more fitting nick, fuck lateral.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 10:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Shit, Masnick ought to pay me for spiking traffic over here at his shithole lunatic asylum.
      
      Don't flatter yourself. This story didn't get any more traffic than our regular stories. It's kind of funny to watch people who obviously don't know any better assume more comments = more traffic.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's kind of funny to watch people who obviously don't know any better assume...
        
        ... a lot of things. Typical IP lovers. But, then, making stuff up is about the only way they have of supporting their positions. Kind of pathetic, isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 5 Jun 2011 @ 7:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But, then, making stuff up is about the only way they have of supporting their positions."
        
        Finally!
        Copyright has inspired some creativity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re:
  Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?
  
  As your nearest neighbour, closest ally and biggest trading partner, I have plenty of reason to be interested in what goes on in your country. If you still think in purely national terms, you have a small mind that is not suited to the modern era.
  
  dealt with harshly
  
  Hidden below a single-click viewing threshhold. Harsh!
  
  I repeat: comparing a commonplace blog commenting mechanic like a report button to complex, sweeping legislation like PROTECT IP is ridiculous and you know it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 7:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?"
    
    "As your nearest neighbour, closest ally and biggest trading partner, I have plenty of reason to be interested in what goes on in your country. If you still think in purely national terms, you have a small mind that is not suited to the modern era."
    
    England's our closest ally. I doubt that there are a lot of Americans who jump into the middle of domestic policy debates of Canada and those who do should really just mind their own business.... as should you.
    
    "dealt with harshly"
    
    "Hidden below a single-click viewing threshhold. Harsh!"
    
    Don't worry, you can still freeload using DNS work-arounds. It's going to be a bit harder after PROTECT IP with the rogue sites losing ad support and payment processing services.
    
    "I repeat: comparing a commonplace blog commenting mechanic like a report button to complex, sweeping legislation like PROTECT IP is ridiculous and you know it."
    
    Not really numbnuts. The effect is the same. Just a matter of degrees. Why don't you run along and download some American content while you still can and leave the domestic policy discussions to the people that actually live here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow... so you really, genuinely believe that nations should take no interest in each other - even two as closely tied as Canada and the U.S.?
      
      And you also do not understand the fundamental political concept of the difference between the public and private sectors?
      
      You are a fool.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Togashi (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 8:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah seriously Marcus, what right have you to an opinion? Everyone knows that the people of one nation should never interfere with the affairs of another by, say, trying to convince them to adopt more draconian copyright laws. I doubt there are a lot of government officials attempting to influence policy decisions of other countries, but those who do should really just mind their own business.... seriously.
        
        Oh, the contradictory positions of the shills. What was it he said, and apparently practices? Oh right, "I see, do as I say (shrilly I might add) not as I do. Got it."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's going to be a bit harder after PROTECT IP with the rogue sites losing ad support and payment processing services.
      
      I'm looking forward to your regular eloquent outbursts when you realize these actions won't have made a dent in piracy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re:
  "In a representative democracy the community is represented by elected officials. "
  
  Are you going to start waving a flag now?
  
  "They make laws."
  
  Based on what parameters? That's a REAL important question.
  
  " Law enforcement and the courts take it from there. Who do you think is better representative of the community that is the United States of America?"
  
  It sure ain't our current crop of politicians, who represent special interests.
  
  " Google? "
  
  And the personal crusade continues...
  
  "Interestingly if Chris-The-Diddlers comments were subject to a judicial review instead of that of the Techdirtbags, his loathsome comments would still be here."
  
  ... You can click on the text and see it. But people are forewarned. Please stop being childish...
  
  "Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act. "
  
  I guess that was too much to ask.
  
  "Chris-The-Diddler was dealt with harshly is because his free speech was extraordinarily offensive. Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for. "
  
  FFS, this is the avenue you choose to use? Someone said something extraordinarily stupid and offensive. No police are coming to his door. The community has seen that taboo door opened and quickly DEALT WITH THE ISSUE.
  
  Those "rogue sites" continue to provide a service. Period. Here's the problems that have legal alternatives:
  MPAA offers movie streams
  RIAA offers music streams
  Demos of songs
  Fair licensing
  Lessening of copyright duration
  
  I could go on, but I'm sure you'll do your fair share of more insults.
  
  Anyway, the point is if you really want to deal with the problem, without government BS in the way, as a copyright holder, provide alternatives to piracy. Something you can never acknowledge because you've gone more and more into being some offensive shill than anything else. There's been plenty of research that proves you wrong. All the PIPA is going to do is upset people until its eventual repeal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 8:35am
  
  Re:
  Marcus, it's a bit tiresome having to listen to foreigners prattle on about affairs that don't concern them. Instead of meddling, why not focus on the many problems of your own country?
  
  I really had to laugh out loud at this. I thought PROTECT IP was about foreign websites.
  
  /sarc
  Damn, can't have them foreigners talking about issues that affect them. We're AMERICANS damnit! We know what's best for everyone! And that Internet thingy belongs to us, because....um......because WE ARE AMERICANS damnit!
  /unsarc
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:17pm

Oh and....

England's our closest ally. I doubt that there are a lot of Americans who jump into the middle of domestic policy debates of Canada and those who do should really just mind their own business.... as should you.

You're right about England, officially - I was thinking of your leaked secret diplomatic cables where you kept calling us your closest ally, my mistake. And you can't deny all the other extremely strong ties between us, especially economic ones. So I really have to assume you are joking when you claim I have no reason to care about U.S. policy, and policy related directly to the global internet no less... joking or stupid.

(And yeah, fewer americans would pay attention to canada - we all know your country influences mine more than the other way around. Which is exactly why Canadians care nearly as much about American politics as we do about domestic politics. Unlike America we don't pretend we are the only country on earth.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 7:53pm
  
  Re:
  Marcus, I'll point out again that PROTECT IP will enable orders to US corporations to desist rendering service to foreign rogue sites. That's US payment processors, US ad networks, US search engines. This is necessary because of the lax laws in foreign countries failing to protect infringement on US copyrighted content. Note the common thread. The law cannot seize foreign based websites. They are free to continue to operate. They just can't access US corporate resources to enable their ventures. Got it.
  
  For every time Masnick and others boo hoo about how this will "break the internet" there are ten guys who shrug and talk about easy it will be to work around. So enough with the moaning already.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And so for that reason I shouldn't care about it at all?
    
    Even if I believed everything you say, the U.S. aggressively pushes its IP law all over the world - strongly in Canada. Yet another reason why I care.
    
    But honestly, this is stupid. If you really think Canadians shouldn't care about U.S. policy, you are a very very stupid man (which comes as no particular surprise)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      actually swap "believed" for "agreed with" - everything you say is true, you are just twisting it and intentionally ignoring the point
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 9:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hahahhaha I just watched your God-awful composite poem set to music on vimeo. Now I get it. You're an embittered, failed, wannabe musician. And judging from that performance, you have no stake in copyright protection. That was priceless. At least your Mom and Dad clapped for you though, that was nice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're on meth. You have to be. That's the onyl reasonable explanation for your contrariness.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually I think it's just embarrassment. He thinks he's this bigshot fast-talker who can out-debate anyone, and he showed up here acting all cocky and superior, only to discover that the Techdirt community is actually a lot smarter and more perceptive than him. On the whole we've been making him look quite foolish, and now that he's accepted we're probably right about the topic at hand, he's trying to change the subject and mock us on unrelated grounds (I'm a Canadian! And I once delivered a shaky and unpracticed performance of a rather pretentious concept poem! OH THE SHAME!) so he doesn't have to admit his mistake
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Since when does he admit a mistake?
        
        He's still going on about how his bills will pass. Meanwhile, everyone is talking about the implications.
        
        He moves the goalposts around so much it's just funnier to sit and watch him flail around like he has a point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yah that's just my point - he would NEVER admit a mistake, so the moment he is backed into a corner he tries to find other completely unrelated things to mock us for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 6:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey look everyone, Buck Lateral discovered Google! Maybe you aren't a lost cause in the modern world after all...
        
        And I'm actually a happy designer/writer who occasionally makes music for a hobby and has never had any intention of making money with it. That particular performance was five old poems mashed together last minute over a piano piece written in about one hour, to fill an open timeslot in a friend's spoken word event. It was lots of fun, and by odd chance there turned out to be a bunch of neuroscientists in the audience, who really went nuts for all my references to the brain (they were the ones shouting)
        
        Glad you got a kick out of it! I sure did. Afraid I don't have video of the next one - writing new songs and adding backup singers made it even more enjoyable, but the videographer was a super-emo poet/filmmaker who hated me and kept stalling on giving me the footage (oh man, you would have just HATED that guy - I kind of did too though, so we would have had something in common for once).
        
        That's the thing, see: any art I create, I create for my own enjoyment and that of the people close to me and other artists I know. I can see why that would be a foreign concept to you, but you should try it some time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 7:36pm

"In a representative democracy the community is represented by elected officials. "

"Are you going to start waving a flag now?"

Does patriotism offend you? Odd. Maybe you should seek political asylum in Canada and room with Marcus.

"They make laws."

Based on what parameters? That's a REAL important question.

A bill hits the floor, it's debated, perhaps amended then voted on. In the case of PROTECT IP, there will be a vote for cloture.

" Law enforcement and the courts take it from there. Who do you think is better representative of the community that is the United States of America?"

"It sure ain't our current crop of politicians, who represent special interests."

Try voting instead of whining. Or maybe for comic relief you could run for office as the Pirate Party candidate. Those guys are such losers they'd probably even take you.

" Google? "

"And the personal crusade continues..."

Puppeteer for Public Knowledge, CDT, EFF, Ron Wyden and more. Alas, you have me dead-to-rights.

"Interestingly if Chris-The-Diddlers comments were subject to a judicial review instead of that of the Techdirtbags, his loathsome comments would still be here."

"... You can click on the text and see it. But people are forewarned. Please stop being childish..."

I see. Do as I say, not as I do. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E. At least I say I oppose unfettered garbage masquerading as free speech. I hoped Masnick would delete the comments and ban him, but he's too soft.

"Chris-The-Diddler's disgusting comments got less due process and free speech protection than the rogue websites would under the PROTECT IP Act. "

"I guess that was too much to ask."

Sorry. Missed it.

"Chris-The-Diddler was dealt with harshly is because his free speech was extraordinarily offensive. Rogue sites give you free stuff that you'd otherwise have to pay for. "

"FFS, this is the avenue you choose to use? Someone said something extraordinarily stupid and offensive. No police are coming to his door. The community has seen that taboo door opened and quickly DEALT WITH THE ISSUE."

Just as the community of the United Sates of America will deal with the issue of rogue sites dedicated to disseminating infringing content through its judicial process.

"Those "rogue sites" continue to provide a service. Period. Here's the problems that have legal alternatives:
MPAA offers movie streams
RIAA offers music streams
Demos of songs
Fair licensing
Lessening of copyright duration

I could go on, but I'm sure you'll do your fair share of more insults.

Anyway, the point is if you really want to deal with the problem, without government BS in the way, as a copyright holder, provide alternatives to piracy."

Granted, there could be a faster adaptation to alternative distribution. It's starting to catch up. I never considered my need to wait to see Hangover 2 as justification for stealing it. We are talking about entertainment aren't we? Not water, not food, not medicine. Entertainment,

"Something you can never acknowledge because you've gone more and more into being some offensive shill than anything else."

Offensive? Are you such a thin-skinned, Nancy-boy that you can't mix it up on an internet forum without getting your feelings hurt? Christ, how many gym classes did you spend locked in your locker? Grow a pair, would you?

"There's been plenty of research that proves you wrong."

Love to see the empirical research on the effects of a law yet to be enacted. Hop in your time machine and fetch it for us.

"All the PIPA is going to do is upset people until its eventual repeal."

I'll wager that it will upset people. Freeloaders, apologists, conspiracy theorists, foreign criminal organizations, Josh the Techdirtbag religious nut who talks about CIA chips implanted in people's heads, Chris-The-Diddler, the tin foil hat wearing Masnick, Marcus the wannabe American and you.
The chances of repeal are zero.... unless you have a meteoric rise in the Pirate Party and wrest control of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 7:40pm
  
  Re:
  You are a paradox, Buck Lateral... an all-American patriot who doesn't believe in government accountability. Weird.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 8:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, I do believe in governmental accountability. I also believe that our federal judicial system is without peer in terms of fairness and justice. Christ, the definition of what constitutes a rogue site was largely written by CDT, the bar is set pretty high and the foreign sites are afforded the same protection under Rule 65 as any other federal civil litigant. That's accountability and fairness.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 8:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah, he's a lobbyist. That isn't paradox. The fact that he's semi-serious in being a paid shill is all too funny. At least now, he's dropped the pretense of civilized debate.
    
    He's yet to really address any points brought up so it's not much to say. Odd that he brings in the Pirate Party just to have something to attack...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 8:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "He's yet to really address any points brought up so it's not much to say."
      
      What'll be Jay? Due process or First Amendment? You pick.
      
      "Odd that he brings in the Pirate Party just to have something to attack..."
      
      I don't know why bringing up the Pirate Party is odd. It might provide you an outlet to do something other than piss and moan. Unless you're more committed to pissing and moaning than doing something about the situation.
      
      I like the Pirate Party. I had fun filleting some douche from the Executive Council of Pirata awhile back on Ars Technica. He was a self-important windbag like you, so that's what made me think of it. He folded like a $3 umbrella too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcus Carab (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 8:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I know I sound like an idiot now, but I totally outsmarted this one dude once, I swear!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 9:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I know I sound like an idiot now......."
        
        Now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 6:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're right, you always have...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 31 May 2011 @ 9:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What'll be Jay? Due process or First Amendment? You pick."
        
        And now it's a choice between two natural rights... Fascinating. How much more you got?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Buck Lateral, 31 May 2011 @ 9:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you really want to start this way Jay. Natural rights? OK, how about those espoused by philosopher John Locke: According to Locke there are three natural rights:
        
        Life, liberty and property.
        
        Why don't we just stick with the US Constitution issues since that's the document all laws are vetted against. If you want to punk out now, I understand
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There are no natural rights, according to D�scartes. Locke was a very good philsopher, but D�scartes and Freud blow him out of the water on 'natural' rights.
        
        "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are derived from another philosopher, Hume at the similar time as Locke.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 1:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Life, liberty and property.
        
        Are you going to now trot out the false claim that copyright is "property" now too? Must we really debunk such claims yet again? Seriously. Tell whoever is paying you to send someone who can actually discuss stuff logically, rather than someone who trots out the lines that were debunked ages ago.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Darryl, 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:23am
        
        But the US Constitution says it is property
        you have yet to 'debunk' it in the first place Mike.
        
        You've SAID it alot of time, but as yet you seem unable to back up your statements with FACTS...
        
        Just because you say something mike does not make it true, in fact if you say something that is a very good reason to question it for truth.
        
        The Congress shall have Power [. . .] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
        
        by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
        
        exclusive RIGHT
        
        Exclusive rights are something someone CAN OWN, you own a right, and it can (YES CAN) be stolen, simply by someone else making it NOT EXCLUSIVE.
        
        Mike, you are supposed to KNOW THE LAW, why cant you understand that simple statement ?
        
        It is after all the US CONSTITUTION
        
        That might be why you are running a 'hate blog' and not actually doing ANYTHING constructive, or helpfull.
        
        (I guess its easy money for little work)
        
        A RIGHT is property, as you can lose that right, and it is a right that has been granted to you by either what you have done, or by buying that right.
        
        If your right to bear arms was removed, you have that right STOLEN from you, you no longer have that right.
        
        If you have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT, and that exclusivity is taken away from you, then you have had that right (lets call it copyright) STOLEN FROM YOU.
        
        Mike, if you are a lawyer, (Big IF), then why cannot you state the truth about it ?
        
        WHY DO YOU ALLWAYS LEAVE OUT THIS SECTION OF THE CONSTITUTION ????
        
        by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
        
        To all those people who say "but they have not lost anything they can still USE their creations"
        
        You are WRONG..
        
        They have lost their exclusive rightUS Constitution.
        
        You do remember the US constitution ??? right ?
        
        Or just the bits from it you can pull out of context for your own justification of crime ?
        
        (and anit-constitutional acts)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 1 Jun 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: But the US Constitution says it is property
        Awesomesauce. I can use my new BuckShiteralBypass(tm) technique on darryl too, since this "its property because the constitution says its a right!" insane rant is so far detached from reality (and case law, and the law, and the constitution, and ....) that I can just mow all the comments down with "report!" and skip right on by. If I eliminate just these two raving, ranting, frothing-at-the-mouth misrepresenters (is that a word?) of copyright law, then the actual discussion (discussion, not the name-calling and blind promotion of all things "Copyright is the ONLY good!") going on here is actually quite interesting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 3:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I had fun filleting some douche from the Executive Council of Pirata awhile back on Ars Technica
        
        Yeah right. You failed as miserably as you did trying the same with Mike here. Get real.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FuzzyDuck, 31 May 2011 @ 11:28pm

Austrian police helping chinese censorship
Basically that's what it is. One less exit node for Chinese dissidents to use. One more ignorant police force of a so-called democratic country aiding an oppressive regime to lock down dissidents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RD, 1 Jun 2011 @ 7:53am

This is the most awesome thread ever on TD!
This is great! What a great thread. We have reasoned, rational, well thought out arguments, and then we have Christopher the child molester (and he is on other sites like USAtoday as well, he's well known around the net), a holocaust denier (wrong! I have first-hand proof from direct family that these events happened...so a merry FUCK YOU a-hole!), and Buck Shiteral and his two-faced, hypocritical, change-with-each-argument shrill shilling that is so out there, its basically comedy. I have found a GREAT way to deal with Buck's "viewpoints" - skim the first line, then hit REPORT! This is awesome! I dont have to actually read all his drivel and whining like a little baby-man! AND I get to violate the fist amendment! (that doesnt apply because I AM NOT THE GOVERNMENT AND NEITHER IS TECHDIRT OR ANYONE WHO POSTS HERE. Get a fucking clue how the "freedom of speech" clause works before spouting off about it moron.) Just look for the little blue box and click REPORT - on every post. Its just more efficient and lets me get to the real, valid arguments here instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re: This is the most awesome thread ever on TD!
  I use this, darryl and Buck Lateral are just gone for me, I don't even have to click anything (though I can show them if I want).
  
  https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1_DWYEIhgMK54_sBDMj5UnuW0bHmdADnCY3099_9ffFg
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:40am

When are you going to start to support your claims ??
but the big question is how difficult is it to explain to the police what tor is, what an exit node is,

Im sure the police, or any other 'authority' would be able to explain computer technology, the internet and its various services to a level that was well over your head mike.

To the point where you would be totally unable to keep up.

Do you honestly believe that police departments, security departments, Governments and so on do not hire the very best and brightest computer science grads and experts they can find ?

Do you honestly believe that a 'lawyer' writing a 'hate blog' who does not practice law and is not computer qualified would have a deeper knowledge of computer science and communications technology that massive IT departments specialising in that field ?

Do you honestly belive that the top 500 super computer are the actual top 500 ?

Or more like 300 to 800, where the top 300 are secret super computers maintained by security agencies, police forces, governments, NSA, DSD, ASIS ASIO, CIA and all them other initials ?

But from all those people and those many thousands of highly trained computer scientists, Mike Masnik know it all and far better.

He understands the law better than the courts, he understands computers better than entire massive departments of computer engineers.

And he knows the US Constitution like he is a professor in constitutional law !!!..

If that is the case, we would have expected better things from you Mike, and not the same ol 'same ol' over and over again, as if you say it enough times it magically becomes true.

I guess its easy to get the un-thinking masses to blindly follow you, and hang on your every word.

But you must find it very difficult to convince anyone who can think for themselves to eat your tripe !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: When are you going to start to support your claims ??
  Ugh. Darryl, Buck Lateral is already supplying more than enough crazy to this comment thread. Save your talents for elsewhere.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re: When are you going to start to support your claims ??
    i agree its a shame to see this comment being neglected on the bottom. Its an awfully funny one. I think I should make a quote a day calendar of Daryl posts....hmmm
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re: When are you going to start to support your claims ??
  "And he knows the US Constitution like he is a professor in constitutional law !!!.."
  
  Just a really bad argument. Obama practiced for 10 years and found Bradley Manning to be guilty without a trial in the last year.
  
  Point - You don't need to be a lawyer to understand your rights under the Constitution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2011 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re: When are you going to start to support your claims ??
  Do you honestly believe that police departments, security departments, Governments and so on do not hire the very best and brightest computer science grads and experts they can find ?
  
  Well, you claim that they hired *you*. I think that pretty much answers that question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fairuse (profile), 4 Jun 2011 @ 10:22pm

What was the question?
Just want to say that by the time I read all the comments (pink ones too) I forgot what made the article worth reading. The comment section is interesting in that it shows there is more of an emotional reaction than I thought possible. I shall read article again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2011 @ 1:57pm

wow!! a Tor discussion going religious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]