SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Absinth writes:
From MSNBC, "It (the site) attempted to operate as a 'discussion-only' forum where people could share their sexual interest in young boys without committing any specific offenses, thus operating 'below the radar' of police attention. Having made contact on the site, some members would move to more private channels, such as email, to exchange and share illegal images and films of children being abused.
The statement said Europol analysts had cracked the security features of a key computer server at the center of the network which uncovered the identities of suspected child sex offenders. And, after his arrest, the forum's Dutch administrator helped police break encryption measures that shielded users' identities, allowing police to begin their covert investigations.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement( ICE ) has also issued a news release."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19 2014, @03:17PM
That is the unfortunate reality. The same tools that provide a measure of shelter to oppressed people under the thumb of tyrannical governments, pretty much by necessity can also be used to shelter scum wishing to hide their actions from more legitimate authorities. I don't really see any other option, especially considering just how blurry the line can be between tyrants and legitimate authorities.
So the question becomes, which is more important? To give shelter to those with a legitimate need, or to deny it to the scum?
I suppose we could try things like TOR routing blacklists that deny access to know scum-oriented sites, but even if such a thing is technically feasible (I don't know) that seems like something that would be prone to lots of abuse, while being only mildly effective - much like the internet porn filters various governments have tried to implement.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19 2014, @04:59PM
> So the question becomes, which is more important?
> To give shelter to those with a legitimate need, or to deny it to the scum?
There will always be scum, even in the most totalitarian system they will be there, if nothing else they will insert themselves into the system itself under the guise of being responsible for stopping scum and using that privileged access for their own ends. The oppressed, by definition, won't have that kind of ease of access.
(Score: 1) by idetuxs on Wednesday March 19 2014, @07:24PM
Even? I read your next sentence but, totalitarian system aren't supposed to stop scum. Not at all. That's not in the definition.
If you think totalitarian governments stop bad people. Then the media (or whoever) have done a good job.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19 2014, @07:52PM
Of course that's what totalitarian systems are for. That's ALWAYS the justification they hang their hat on. And it sort of works too, for example you could walk the streets of moscow in the dead of the night under the USSR without fear of being mugged or raped, that's not true now. The fact that the people running them also get a lot of benefit out of the arrangement does not negate that. Two things can be true at the same time. In fact, the world is rarely ever black and white.
(Score: 1) by tathra on Monday March 24 2014, @01:15AM
their definition of "scum" isnt the same as yours.
(Score: 1) by idetuxs on Wednesday March 19 2014, @07:28PM
Mod up please.