SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) introduced legislation on Tuesday meant to halt the use of Department of Defense (DOD) computer networks by users for sharing or procuring pornographic images of children.
The End National Defense Network Abuse (END Network Abuse) was introduced in the wake of in[sic] an investigation called "Project Flicker" carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This investigation identified over 5,000 individuals, including many affiliated with DOD, who were subscribed to child porn websites.
The Pentagon's Defense Criminal Investigative Service subsequently identified hundreds of DOD-affiliated individuals as suspects involved in accessing child pornography, several of whom used government devices to view and share the images.
Why does this require a new law?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @11:07PM (2 children)
1,000 Tor nodes flicker out.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:35AM (1 child)
A thousand points of light.
Gone.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:59AM
must not need those nodes any more
not sure what the implications are
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Monday July 08 2019, @11:08PM (13 children)
I do not know. I assume Child pr0n is already illegal in the US?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @11:21PM (1 child)
A new law allows the politicians to pontificate and get attention. "Look at me! I'm against child porn. Look at me!"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:55AM
epstein. it will go nowhere however
whatever layer of society the dems are speaking to is simply not a large enough interest to gain political power
rulers don't care, because they will retain political power regardless of elephant or donkey
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Monday July 08 2019, @11:37PM
Get outsiders on their network (paid I have to assume), money for training personnel and or hiring contractors (none of which is free), and no-one will speak against a witch hunt for CP.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday July 08 2019, @11:56PM (4 children)
This is in the subset of "we must do something" venue of acting so you can be seen acting.
There is technically change from the legal status quo in this particular law because it makes allows for audits, which you know, you can't go auditing regular citizens' computer. That's a violation of the 4th amendment. But government owned machines, whose rights could you possibly violate then?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @11:57PM (3 children)
Governments are people too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:02AM
They're made of people, and if we intruded into the private and personal effects of government employees, we'd be crossing a line. But the tools by which governance happens? That's "our" property. Rei publica.
Like, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy when doing government business. At all. I got fucking FOIA any federal government employee's emails if I could fill out a short document explaining the public interest.
It's the whole thing Hillary(and Bush's people, and Trump's people) were avoiding with private email servers.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:27AM (1 child)
Do you mean, just like corporations?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:49AM
http://www.freedom-school.com/the-united-states-is-a-corporation.html [freedom-school.com]
(Score: 2) by NateMich on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:35AM
Oh it's illegal all right, but now you have to worry about potentially breaking a law that could land you in prison, while you're breaking a law that could land you in prison.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by RS3 on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:54AM (3 children)
Child pornography is very illegal in the US. Trouble is, many who work in government, esp. DOD and other para-military, intelligence, and law enforcement organizations, are somewhat protected from, almost immune to investigations that ordinary citizens are subjected to. They feel they're "above the law". The responsibility and power infects their psyche, they don't fear repercussions. As far as they're concerned, right and wrong are what they define it to be. This is very sad news.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday July 09 2019, @03:49AM (1 child)
Oh yeah, we have this too.
Usually it's rich people because they can afford the lawyers, but being connected helps.
I am pretty sure another law won't change anything.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:51AM
Sadly and cynically I think you're probably right. Well, it'll change some of the ways the games are played, but it won't change the big picture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 14 2019, @12:58PM
Well, you have to consider that the psychological makeup of the average law enforcement officer, politician, and CP aficionado are such that the Venn diagram of them is but a single circle.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday July 08 2019, @11:27PM (5 children)
to halt the use of congressional computers by users for sharing or procuring campaign donations. Or, as you and I, and our accountants see them, bribes.
Gonna go out on a limb and guess congressional bribes are a far worse problem than DoD folks accessing kiddy porn.
/ Just like Biden, if I ever run for any office I'm totally fuxored based on my internet history
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday July 08 2019, @11:58PM (4 children)
I mean, I see where you're coming from, but I'd say minor technical barriers that make bribes marginally harder to process doesn't fix the underlying problem of there being bribes in the first place
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:06AM (3 children)
How about treason charges for any politician or other government employee caught accepting contributions or considerations valued in excess of $50 from anyone whatsoever?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:24AM (2 children)
Let's set the maximum contribution limit to the minimum wage ($7.25). This would incentivise politicians to quickly reconsider increasing the wages of the poor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @10:28AM (1 child)
Look into the history of minimum wage, its original purpose was to force unskilled workers into joblessness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:13PM
https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opinion/commentary/thomas-c-leonard-the-sordid-origins-of-minimum-wage-law/article_ca3ea287-0e17-5426-bc05-69b586b7a264.html [pressofatlanticcity.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @11:42PM (3 children)
American military sunk so low to the level of "the Russian Army", and pedophile to top it off.
$MAGA
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:30AM (2 children)
So... You're saying the Russian military are all pedophiles? Sounds pretty dangerous to me.
Given what the GRU did to Skripal just for being a traitor, I hope you aren't within their reach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:46AM (1 child)
Learn to read. I wrote "pedophile to top it off."
Dumb rusky.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Tuesday July 09 2019, @08:38PM
No no. That's "Dumb Merkin" or "Dumb Scotsman" to you.
So, perhaps you're Ukrainian? Your first post sure didn't look like it came from a native English speaker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 08 2019, @11:53PM
l-a-w-m-a-k-e-r
it's right in the name.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:32AM (2 children)
Because it gives the lawmakers something to do, keeps them employed, gets them attention, and more than likely whatever law they pass will have all kinds of totally unrelated unwanted things stuck on to it because nobody would ever dare vote against a law like this no matter how bad it is.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @01:35AM (1 child)
Probably M$ will get a $10B contract to secure the DoD computers via a DNS filter.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Tuesday July 09 2019, @07:51PM
Is that a string variable, or are you still using that old Microsoft abbreviation? You know, the one where it was funny because Microsoft was all about the money.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:38AM (1 child)
Department of Diddlers.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @01:07AM
Ever since they closed the Subic Bay base, all the military pedophiles had to go online.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by istartedi on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:15AM
New law may be required because it's an Appropriation bill. [wikipedia.org], ie a bill that requires and/or authorizes money to be spent in ways that it was not previously being spent.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday July 09 2019, @02:54AM (1 child)
It's a bill that has a bunch of other stuff we don't want combined with something everyone can agree on(for the children!). Obviously this has nothing to do with child pornography as only an idiot would believe there's a significant amount of child porn downloaded on pentagon computers. With all the monitoring that goes on with systems like that for classified information can you imagine how someone would be crucified for child porn?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by redneckmother on Tuesday July 09 2019, @06:30AM
Hmmm... not sure about the monitoring (or crucifixion) part. After all, TFP points out that this is only just now surfacing.
I haven't examined the verbiage of the bill to check out the other ramifications, though.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday July 09 2019, @10:43AM
Is that (from TFS):
Note that this is nothing new. A cursory web search turned up these links, going as far back as 2010:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/24/pentagon-us-staff-downloaded-child-pornography [theguardian.com]
https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2013/01/why-was-pentagon-child-pornography-investigation-halted/ [topsecretwriters.com]
http://blackbag.gawker.com/uh-did-we-finish-looking-into-those-1-700-pentagon-chi-1609060355 [gawker.com]
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/operation-flicker-child-pornography-found-at-high-levels-of-government/# [theblackvault.com]
https://anonhq.com/the-child-porn-pentagon-nsa-cia-link-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ [anonhq.com]
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nsa-silent-on-spies-child-porn-problem [thedailybeast.com]
Note that the links above are all from 2010-2017.
However, TFA [thehill.com] states that:
If this is true, where are the indictments around this? Maybe some convictions, too?
Perhaps I've been living in a cave, but I haven't heard about any of these new cases.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @12:13PM
Whenever I see stuff like this that doesn't really seem necessary but will get plenty of coverage, I always wonder what they are doing that they're trying to distract everyone away from. These sorts of "look at me!" things are usually used to draw attention for a while so they can quickly rubber-stamp some other bills that they don't want the public to know about and be able to call them out on before they get passed.
(Score: 1) by CheesyMoo on Tuesday July 09 2019, @03:58PM
I can already hear Alex Jones explaining how this is an attempt to thwart the DOD from busting the child-sex-ring cabal that powers the deep-state psychic vampires.
Is my imaginary Alex Jones strawman wrong?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday July 09 2019, @05:38PM
Not a lawyer but I remember hearing that military properties, like bases and the Pentagon, are considered exempt from many local and federal laws. The civilian police can't just waltz into a military installation and execute a search or arrest warrant without the base commander's co-operation. So even the FBI would have trouble investigating illegal activity on a military base.
I think.
Any lawyers want to correct/expand this?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2019, @07:15PM
May MDC's ghost strike horror into the hearts of the DODers who have acted badly.
If only there were enough living vigilantes that these laws weren't needed.