Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Smile29: Big Brother is watching you Google

EchoEcho staring is caringModerator mod
edited June 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, there's a Written Declaration 29 making the rounds in the EU Parliament.

First, let me explain how Written Declarations work.

It's kind of like those shitty "If X people join this group I'll wax my balls" groups on Facebook. If more than 50% of the MEPs press the Like button, then that written declaration becomes official parliament policy - not a law, but the parliament's official opinion on something.

For example, Written Declaration 30 wants to limit the use of trans-fatty acids in food, and Written Declaration 34 wants to make May 22 the European Day Against Obesity. The parliament doesn't like fatties, it seems.

And then there's Written Declaration 29. Ye gods.

It is, of course, about child porn. On the surface, at least. When you scratch below the surface, the thick, vile ichor of politics starts oozing up, forming slimy tentacles reaching for the nearest bodily orifice to rip your soul from your quivering body.

There's a site with the ominous name Smile29 about the WD, complete with a picture of a child perfectly chosen to look vulnerable and tug at heart strings.

Here is the text of WD29 (PDF). Right then, let's start ripping it apart!
A. whereas it is essential to ensure that the internet continues to afford a high level of virtual
democracy, which does not present any threat to women and children,

B. whereas, however, improper use of the opportunities provided by technology may
facilitate child pornography and sex offending,

C. whereas the internet also allows paedophiles and sex offenders to enjoy freedom of action,
putting them on the same footing as honest citizens and making it difficult for the
authorities to trace them,

We start by establishing that pedophiles aren't people. In fact, they need to be traced at all times, even at the suspicion of being sexually attracted to children, whether or not they have actually ever acted on this attraction. Innocent until proven guilty should not apply to these ab-people.

Moving on:
1. Calls on the Council and the Commission to act on Communication COM(2007)0267;

2. Asks the Council and the Commission to implement Directive 2006/24/EC and extend it
to search engines in order to tackle online child pornography and sex offending rapidly
and effectively;

3. Calls on the Member States to coordinate a European early warning system involving their
public authorities, based on the existing system for food safety, as a means of tackling
paedophilia and sex offending;

4. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the
signatories, to the Council and the Commission.

Point 1 is a document titled "Value added tax VAT: common system, treatment of insurance and financial services (amend. 'VAT Directive' 2006/112/EC)", which doesn't sound all that relevant - further analysis pending from my sources and contacts.

Point 2. Oh boy.

Directive 2006/24/EC is the Data Retention Directive. It's already getting sneaky here, by referring to it by its ID number instead of its name, so the unwary MEP might just sign it without thinking further, because hey, it's "for the children", right?

Wikipedia has the following paragraph about it:
According to the directive, member states will have to store citizens' telecommunications data for six to 24 months stipulating a maximum time period. Under the directive the police and security agencies will be able to request access to details such as IP address and time of use of every email, phone call and text message sent or received. A request to access the information will be able only with a court order.

The Data Retention Directive has sparked serious concerns from privacy groups, IT security firms and legal experts.

This directive is already in effect, though not yet implemented by all EU nations. Sweden opted for the maximum 24 months of data retention, in spite of heavy protests.

In addition to logging the sender and receiver (but not actual contents, if you believe them) of all emails, all phone calls (number of caller and receiver), text messages sent and received, as well as the position of your cell phone, making your phone a tracker for the state, all search engine queries will under this WD be saved, together with the IP address doing the search.

All in order to "protect the children".

Hands up, everyone that thinks the hardcore pedophiles go to Google Image Search and type "hot pics of young boys with a dick up their ass".

The Data Retention Directive itself is already under heavy fire from all directions, among them an official query as to whether it intrudes on personal rights and freedoms and the EU constitution itself.

MEP Cecilia Wikström from the liberal group ALDE has written a letter to all fellow MEPs explaining how she was misled into signing the declaration:
Both of the two e-mails sent to MEPs focused on the early warning system and neither mentioned the data retention Directive. The website set up to support the written declaration also does not mention data retention, at least not in an obvious way. Even the written declaration itself does not mention the Directive by name, but only refers to its reference number.

Bearing in mind the fact that data retention is not relevant to an early-warning system and that none of the material made available to MEPs on the subject mentioned data retention, it seems very likely that MEPs signed the Written Declaration unaware of this aspect of the text, just like I did.

Honor and respect to MEP Wikström for standing up for her ideals and not blindly signing anything that says "protect the children" on it.

Then we have wankers like Alf Svensson (Swedish Christ Democrats), who said something along the lines of "This is such a colossal abuse of the children. Then you need to take a step back and not be afraid of your personal interests being revealed. Even if you can't find all material you have to try."

My official opinion is that Alf Svensson is the very definition of a useful idiot. Fuck you, Alf Svensson. You're only being used as a sock puppet to ram this through the Parliament.

By Alf's very definition you need to "accept" this and "take a step back" and accept the fact that you are a potential pedophile in need of constant monitoring, both on the internet as well as in your physical life, by constantly tracking your location.

So, who came up with this pile of crap? Why, MEPs Tiziano Motti (Italy) and Anna Záborská (Slovakia).

Anna Záborská has the following opinions documented:
  • Opposed to gay rights
  • Opposed to discrimination laws
  • Thinks AIDS is god's vengeance against homosexuality
  • Thinks abortion should be illegal, including in rape cases

No crime is disgusting enough to validate the dismantling of the system of justice. Storing search engine queries for 6-24 months will accomplish absolutely nothing to prevent child abuse and the dissemination of child pornography. Undercover agents have already documented the rings that swap CP - they're at the very forefront of cryptographic technology. They don't fucking Google it.

There are other equally disgusting crimes - murder, rape, assaults. In these cases we don't accept the total restructuring of our personal integrity in order to prevent these crimes. Yet when it comes to child porn, it suddenly seems acceptible to start lobbying for this.

This slope is already plenty slippery. As soon as search engine queries start getting stored, you'll have a long queue of "special interests" demanding access to it.

Stopped smiling yet? I have. But the record industry is probably grinning like the Cheshire Cat right now. After all, they like child pornography, because "politicians understand child pornography", and with it they can be manipulated.

Remember what I started this post with? If 50% of MEPs press the Like button, this becomes official policy.

There are 736 MEPs. Half of that is 369.

This written declaration has 324 signatures.

Echo on
«134

Posts

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I always liked the british spelling of paedophile for some reason.
    (Well more than the American version anyway)

    http://i.imgur.com/SVLUjAW.png
    Vanguard wrote: »
    ...poetry is actually the worst
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The "and sex offending" part of "child pornography and sex offending" is kind of strange. Not just for the poor English, but because it's an undefined term. What does "and sex offending" mean? I realize you could say "and sex offending" obviously means molesting kids... but the turn of phrase leaves things pretty wide open, and I'm not sure if that's unintentional.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    No crime is disgusting enough to validate the dismantling of the system of justice.

    bravo, that's always what I've wanted to say but was afraid of finding out how many people don't agree

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Article 8

    Protection of personal data

    1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

    2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the
    person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to
    data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

    3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

    Surely this motion shits all over the above?

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Article 8

    Protection of personal data

    1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

    2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the
    person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to
    data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

    3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

    Surely this motion shits all over the above?

    Yes, but to stop people breaking the law to hurt the children we must hurt everyone by breaking the law you see. If we break the law once, then paedophiles will be unable to break it, since it will already be broken.

    LOGIC!

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited June 2010
    That article is from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, I'm pretty sure the ECJ could strike this thing down if it ever became more than a resolution.

    My MEP is a hardcore leftist and a pretty intelligent man so I doubt he'll be signing this.

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    The "and sex offending" part of "child pornography and sex offending" is kind of strange. Not just for the poor English, but because it's an undefined term. What does "and sex offending" mean? I realize you could say "and sex offending" obviously means molesting kids... but the turn of phrase leaves things pretty wide open, and I'm not sure if that's unintentional.

    There are already laws in the UK that outlaw "extreme" porn, which is so fuzzily defined nobody actually knows what it means.

    The Consenting Adults Action Network got a load of their members to put together a portfolio of film and photgraphs they'd shot themselves or taken from mainstream films and couldn't get a consistent answer from various police forces and prosecutors as to whether it would be considered illegal or not.

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited June 2010
    japan wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    The "and sex offending" part of "child pornography and sex offending" is kind of strange. Not just for the poor English, but because it's an undefined term. What does "and sex offending" mean? I realize you could say "and sex offending" obviously means molesting kids... but the turn of phrase leaves things pretty wide open, and I'm not sure if that's unintentional.

    There are already laws in the UK that outlaw "extreme" porn, which is so fuzzily defined nobody actually knows what it means.

    The Consenting Adults Action Network got a load of their members to put together a portfolio of film and photgraphs they'd shot themselves or taken from mainstream films and couldn't get a consistent answer from various police forces and prosecutors as to whether it would be considered illegal or not.

    That must have been an...interesting consultation.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    How big does the fist-shaped dildo have to be before it qualifies as "extreme"?

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • TlexTlex Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Does anyone know the actual chances of this thing being passed/whatever? I'd assume it'd be low since it's championed by people who are seemingly far right in the EU Parliament.

  • PeccaviPeccavi oh... oh my!Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    How big does the fist-shaped dildo have to be before it qualifies as "extreme"?

    detroit_fist_statue3.jpg

    kvhn.png
  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    Tlex wrote: »
    Does anyone know the actual chances of this thing being passed/whatever? I'd assume it'd be low since it's championed by people who are seemingly far right in the EU Parliament.

    ~40 signatures off when it started getting attention. I know at least a dozen MEPs withdrew their signatures after that, so there's still hope.

  • IsidoreIsidore Registered User
    edited June 2010
    I'm currently reading Lolita, which I ordered off a "radical" (their term) leftist bookshop on the internet.

    Any estimation how many EU security lists I'm on because of this?

    To imply that those currently at the top - the Warren Buffets and Roman Abramoviches of this world - are the very best, the ne plus ultra of humanity, is a kind of hate speech toward the species. Dignity demands that we refute it.
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    A. whereas it is essential to ensure that the internet continues to afford a high level of virtual
    democracy, which does not present any threat to women and children

    This is just what the hell?

  • RingoRingo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    All of them

    ceres wrote: »
    I'm just going to go ahead and lock this thread before I feel any worse about humanity.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG now featured at the Exigency Forum
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    mrflippy wrote: »
    A. whereas it is essential to ensure that the internet continues to afford a high level of virtual
    democracy, which does not present any threat to women and children

    This is just what the hell?

    Men don't count

    JKKaAGp.png
  • mrflippymrflippy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    mrflippy wrote: »
    A. whereas it is essential to ensure that the internet continues to afford a high level of virtual
    democracy, which does not present any threat to women and children

    This is just what the hell?

    Men don't count

    Not unless we're raping the women and children I guess.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    Men are manly and can take the abuse, clearly.

  • HonkHonk Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2010
    Please get the EU out of my internets. I'm tired of them coming up with more stuff like this every single year.

  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I always get scared when anyone considers seeing something a crime.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    I always get scared when anyone considers seeing something a crime.

    Yeah, I've been thinking about making a thread about that too - can it be illegal to look at something?

    That would only catch the occasional dude jerking off to underage 16-year olds posted on 4chan, not any actual hardcore pedos.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Man what the fuck is wrong with the world at the moment. It's like we've finally reached that point everyone kept saying would happen, where politicians literally wave their hands and talk incoherently about child pornography to pass ridiculous super-invasive laws.

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    No crime is disgusting enough to validate the dismantling of the system of justice. Storing search engine queries for 6-24 months will accomplish absolutely nothing to prevent child abuse and the dissemination of child pornography. Undercover agents have already documented the rings that swap CP - they're at the very forefront of cryptographic technology. They don't fucking Google it.

    I would be more convinced that they were actually trying to stop child pornography if they limited the stored queries to only those which contained the terms "child pornography" or "fucking kids" or that sort of thing. The notion that we have to store everything, ever, is far too telling of their true intentions.

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    Yeah, I've been thinking about making a thread about that too - can it be illegal to look at something?

    That is an interesting question.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    Yeah, I've been thinking about making a thread about that too - can it be illegal to look at something?

    That is an interesting question.

    That's getting really close to thoughtcrime territory.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    No crime is disgusting enough to validate the dismantling of the system of justice. Storing search engine queries for 6-24 months will accomplish absolutely nothing to prevent child abuse and the dissemination of child pornography. Undercover agents have already documented the rings that swap CP - they're at the very forefront of cryptographic technology. They don't fucking Google it.

    I would be more convinced that they were actually trying to stop child pornography if they limited the stored queries to only those which contained the terms "child pornography" or "fucking kids" or that sort of thing. The notion that we have to store everything, ever, is far too telling of their true intentions.

    There's also the question of where you draw the line on what a search engine is.

    I mean the Google algorithms are pretty well known now - replicating them is not difficult. Almost any webpage with a text input box could be a search engine.

  • WashWash Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Man what the fuck is wrong with the world at the moment. It's like we've finally reached that point everyone kept saying would happen, where politicians literally wave their hands and talk incoherently about child pornography to pass ridiculous super-invasive laws.

    It's not like we've reached that point. We simply have.

    u5mv3v50fyfj.png
  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    There's also the question of where you draw the line on what a search engine is.

    I mean the Google algorithms are pretty well known now - replicating them is not difficult. Almost any webpage with a text input box could be a search engine.

    Exacly the same discussion is going on in pirate circles about what the heck an ISP is. Is a hotel with wifi for guests an ISP?

    Am I an ISP for my friends with laptops?

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Wait, so is this thing going to make searching for child pornography illegal? Or is searching legal, but looking / saving / storing / hosting is illegal?

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited June 2010
    It's funny how the EU remains a complete non-entity at the UN, IMF and NATO yet it must police the Internet.

    I think I speak for every Europhile when I say, kindly stop wasting our money on frivilous shit and sort out some of the horrendous problems plauging the institutions.

  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    815165 wrote: »
    I always get scared when anyone considers seeing something a crime.

    Yeah, I've been thinking about making a thread about that too - can it be illegal to look at something?

    That would only catch the occasional dude jerking off to underage 16-year olds posted on 4chan, not any actual hardcore pedos.

    if that 16 year old wasn't so hot I wouldn't be in trouble

    JKKaAGp.png
  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    Swedish police has already reacted with "what the hell is this shit about?"

    They won't be able to do anything whatsoever if it's suddenly illegal to look at something. Are they supposed to send a squad if they get a call about someone looking at child po-- no, sorry, he just stopped.

    Possession of child porn is already illegal pretty much everywhere, and it's possession people get nailed for.

  • 815165815165 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    When it comes to viewing in imagine online, isn't the viewing also technically possession?

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'm hoping at some point someone will get a legal precedent set that the incidental caching a web browser does of images does not count as possession.

  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    When it comes to viewing in imagine online, isn't the viewing also technically possession?

    Well I suppose if the police bust into your house and see you looking at it, but if there's no trace of it on your PC, how do you figure they'd know if you happened to see any?

    JKKaAGp.png
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    When it comes to viewing in imagine online, isn't the viewing also technically possession?

    Well, the "image" is not possessed; the particular file of discrete bits of data is possessed. The image is a secondary consequent of that data file being processed.

    yeah, i don't know.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    815165 wrote: »
    When it comes to viewing in imagine online, isn't the viewing also technically possession?

    There's another suggestion somewhere to make it count as possession if it can be proven (via server logs and IP addresses) that an image was accessed.

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Moderator mod
    edited June 2010
    I'm hoping at some point someone will get a legal precedent set that the incidental caching a web browser does of images does not count as possession.

    That's exactly why they're lobbying for looking at it as illegal.

  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Echo wrote: »
    815165 wrote: »
    When it comes to viewing in imagine online, isn't the viewing also technically possession?

    There's another suggestion somewhere to make it count as possession if it can be proven (via server logs and IP addresses) that an image was accessed.

    I'm having a hard time deciding whether this is a good idea or not. Depends on implementation I guess

    JKKaAGp.png
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.