View Full Version : When is it all right for an IP to reveal a client?
acushla
05-10-2005, 07:31 PM
I came across this news item in a Toronto newspaper today and it raised an issue that I thought would make for an interesting discussion.
Essentially the story is this: A Toronto man was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty to possessing thousands of computer photos of adults engaged in sex acts with children six and younger.
He had sent four photos and a video over the Internet to a Toronto police officer working undercover in a child porn chat room.
A search warrent was used to obtain, through his Internet provider, the address of a home near Lansdowne Avenue and Dundas Street he shared with his boyfriend.
Personally I think, under these circumstances, the IP was correct, and in fact should be commended, for co-operating with the police and supplying the man's name and address.
I do not think that it is a valid arguement to suggest that something like this is the beginning of 'a slippery slope' because of the possible abuse further along the line.
With that arguement it seems to me that nobody would be allowed to own a car because it would be possible for you to purposly run somebody over with it.
Tokelil
05-10-2005, 07:55 PM
This is a real tough issue IMO. How do "we" keep peoples privacy (which IMO is one of the great things about the Internet) and still prevent the Internet to be used to do "bad things".
Where goes the line of peoples privacy? Software piracy? Illigal drug distribution? Child porn? You name it...
Im sure all here will agree that with child porn it should be possible to do what ever it takes to stop the people distributing it.
Besides that Im not sure...
acushla
05-10-2005, 08:03 PM
This is a real tough issue IMO. How do "we" keep peoples privacy (which IMO is one of the great things about the Internet) and still prevent the Internet to be used to do "bad things".
Where goes the line of peoples privacy? Software piracy? Illegal drug distribution? Child porn? You name it...
I'm sure all here will agree that with child porn it should be possible to do what ever it takes to stop the people distributing it.
Besides that I'm not sure...
I think you express essentially what I feel to be the correct premise...namely that there are circumstances that warrant the disclosure of a IP subscriber.
A NEVER approach is, I believe, short sighted and certainly not in everybody's interest.
I came across this news item in a Toronto newspaper today and it raised an issue that I thought would make for an interesting discussion.
We have a Privacy Act in this country which bars a business or any organization for that matter from divulging any information about another without expressly given consent.
Even given that there was direct evidence of a crime being committed (child pornography is a Federal offense in Canada), to law enforcement I say this:
"Sorry Charlie - you lose. Find another way."
Where do you draw the line?
Simple.
In favor of the individual.
If you don't do that, all of a sudden the entire right of an individual to privacy itself is on a "slippery slope", subject to continual erosion by self serving organizations, lobbyists and panderers of various reasons "for the public good" and / or so-called "national security".
I stand steadfastly by that view and it is NOT subject to compromise in ANY form for ANY reason.
While I certainly do not condone child pornography, I champion the rights of the individual to privacy. Our neighbours to the South rape that ideal viciously and with malicious intent every single day.
Let's not join them.
acushla
05-11-2005, 03:54 AM
Where do you draw the line?
Simple.
In favor of the individual.
Although you state your case elegantly and of course it is the position of a libertarian...and I know you will not waver from it, so this is not an attempt to challenge that position...but I would like to point out that there are others here amongst us who feel that if you're going to champion the rights of the individual then how about starting with the rights of those in our society who are unable to protect themselves.
I personally would find it very difficult to live with myself knowing that an ideal, no matter how noble, and make no mistake, it is noble...is contributing to the abuse of a child.
In my world freedom means the choice to give up some of that freedom in order to serve the greater good.
This is the edit. Not to belabour the point Roj...but it did occur to me to ask you what if it was one of YOUR children...or...lets take a worse case scenario and suppose that somebody abducted, etc. etc. and they mutilated a child of yours and the RCMP came to you and said...look, we know who did it, we got his name through his IP server...I guess we just can't do anything. Sorry.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????
Shadowraven
05-11-2005, 05:22 AM
I agree that the IP did the right thing, even though I'd normally be quick to champion the rights of the individual. I believe that when a crime involving victims is committed, an IP is right to cooperate.
I've heard the slippery slope argument before, and while it does have merit, there are limits. The key to controlling it is to make it very clear when this sort of thing is allowable. I believe it would be OK (with a court order, always) in cases like; rape, extortion, robbery, murder, child-related crime, assault, drugs, and serious white-collar crimes. No other crime should be able to pass the litmus-test of divulging private information. So far, even in the U.S., a court order is required before that information is divulged. Although, it is not always a strong enough case warranting it here.
Todd The Kiwi
05-11-2005, 07:47 AM
bleh, off with their heads.
kiddie porn is even worse that animal cruelty.
because they are human, and it's against HUMANITY.
as for ip invasion (as i'm prepared to call it here)
bring it on, what do we really have to hide?
it's called "reasonable grounds" here
if the cops have it (reasonable grounds) they will have a squiz at your machine
at your peril if you have questionable shit in there.
however the legislation for this stuff is so tricky
a zero tolerance thing might come into effect even. :ermm:
(if you have an ip, you'll get searched, just to make sure)
it's hard to get riled textually, this lot should be 72 pt red and bold.
acushla
05-11-2005, 08:00 AM
bleh, off with their heads.
kiddie porn is even worse that animal cruelty.
because they are human, and it's against HUMANITY.
as for ip invasion (as i'm prepared to call it here)
bring it on, what do we really have to hide?
it's called "reasonable grounds" here
if the cops have it (reasonable grounds) they will have a squiz at your machine
at your peril if you have questionable shit in there.
I got to thinking more about this and I started to ask myself ...just as we are about to install a program on our computers we are given a list of terms and conditions and then the choice to accept or not to accept. We all know what happens if we exercise our right not to accept...in short we do not get to install the program.
What if Internet Providers were to, in effect, do the same thing...here are the terms and conditions including our right to reveal your identity should it be deemed that you have engaged in any of the following criminal activities...and then of course a list of the applicable activities. Anything not on that list would be 'untouchable'...but should you do anything on that list...
I accept
I decline
Although you state your case elegantly and of course it is the position of a libertarian...and I know you will not waver from it, so this is not an attempt to challenge that position...but I would like to point out that there are others here amongst us who feel that if you're going to champion the rights of the individual then how about starting with the rights of those in our society who are unable to protect themselves.
Even fewer of us can protect ourselves against Big Brother. You end up with the ago-old question:
"Who watches the watchers?"
That question alone can negate all the potential positive results that can be done by accepting a small loss of privacy (at least it will start small initially) to satisfy the so-called "greater good".
Unfortunately, the "greater good" is a fallacy - it doesn't exist.
Why?
Because it can be (and usually is) redefined at a moment's notice to suit politicians and security people, the former of whom have negotiable "integrity" and the altter of whom are control freaks by nature. And I should know - I work with both five days out of every week.
I personally would find it very difficult to live with myself knowing that an ideal, no matter how noble, and make no mistake, it is noble...is contributing to the abuse of a child.
Ah, but you see it isn't. There are so many other avenues that can be used, not the least of which is the sting operation. They get used every day. Law enforcementloves the idea of being able to finger individuals easily who they suspect of wrongdoing but the coin has another side. I am reminded of a former work associate of mine and the following situation:
There was someone who was accused of potential wrongdoing whom we had to investigate. Getting evidence of said wrongdoing was going to be very difficult. What was my associate's solution (bearing in mind that he was a senior forensics analyst) when faced with this dilemma?
"I'd just 'black hat' into his office, and sieze and image the hard drive".
When senior analysts with years of experience can so cavalierly take that approach, what rights do ANY of us have?
The Absolute Power Rule never fails to let us down.
In my world freedom means the choice to give up some of that freedom in order to serve the greater good.
I knew you'd somehow get around to the "greater good" crap - that's why I put it to bed earlier. It's such a nice little catchphrase that can be used to "justify" any number of different things.
In my world, the "greater good" is recognized for the myth and fallacy that it is as iterated above.
This is the edit. Not to belabour the point Roj...but it did occur to me to ask you what if it was one of YOUR children...or...lets take a worse case scenario and suppose that somebody abducted, etc. etc. and they mutilated a child of yours and the RCMP came to you and said...look, we know who did it, we got his name through his IP server...I guess we just can't do anything. Sorry.
Might I acquaint you with the following phrase:
"My fate not in God's hands while I have both of mine"
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That aside, if they got that far and could go no further because of what they perceive as "roadblocks in the law" then They Aren't Doing Their Job.
I'm not saying I would be happy with it because I would be lying. However, what price paradise? And will it still be paradise afterwards?
I don't see this so much different from when someone catches your licence plate when you're breaking traffic rules.
I don't see this so much different from when someone catches your licence plate when you're breaking traffic rules.
They don't go into your house when you break traffic rules.
They don't go into your house when you break traffic rules.
So the actions taken after they find out the identity of the suspect is wrong, and not the way they found out the identity?
You mentioned other avenues. What are those?
o2xygen
05-11-2005, 11:57 AM
The internet provider did the right thing..
Child porn is the most cruel, sick thing of the internet... I have heard many times on the television that someone was arrested because he distributed child porn or even newborn porn... How sick is that?
So the actions taken after they find out the identity of the suspect is wrong, and not the way they found out the identity?
You mentioned other avenues. What are those?
One causes the other. Open the door an inch and all manner of vermin creeps in.
Don't believe me?
Look Stateside at the RIAA and MPAA.
Look at the Patriot Act.
Vermin.
The internet provider did the right thing..
Child porn is the most cruel, sick thing of the internet... I have heard many times on the television that someone was arrested because he distributed child porn or even newborn porn... How sick is that?
The end NEVER justifies the means.
Never has, never will.
Take civilization down that road and soon you won't have either - no covilization, no road.
Off to work (where on occasion the possibility exists that I may encounter child porn distributors - I'm an IT Forensics Analyst)...
One causes the other. Open the door an inch and all manner of vermin creeps in.
In most cases one extreme is no better than the other. As Shadowraven said, it just should be made clear when this kind of stuff is allowed and when it's not.
And yes, I buy the "greater good" crap. You're right that it can and probably is misused, but IMO that isn't enough for not to do something as catching a child porn distributor.
In your first post you also mention a "Privacy Act in this country which bars a business or any organization". There were no business nor organisation involved in here, were there? Just a Toronto man and several children who were abused.
Those other avenues?
Don't believe me?
Look Stateside at the RIAA and MPAA.
Look at the Patriot Act.
Vermin.
Luckily I'm living on this side of the Atlantic.
In your first post you also mention a "Privacy Act in this country which bars a business or any organization". There were no business nor organisation involved in here, were there? Just a Toronto man and several children who were abused.
Oh yes there was.
The ISP.
I'd be looking into sueing the ISP for breach of the Privacy Act right about now if I were in that guy's shoes.
Those other avenues?
Sting operations, more human engineering investigative techniques...
Luckily I'm living on this side of the Atlantic.
You're not lucky. Look around you - it's happening there too, in the UK, Italy, various other European countries...
Sheepeh
05-11-2005, 03:48 PM
Congress passes Gestapo ID legislation
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Published Wednesday 11th May 2005 11:12 GMT
Comment House and Senate Republicans have rammed through the so-called Real ID Act - a legislative Trojan horse that lets the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) dictate drivers' license standards to the states - by attaching it to a $76 billion military spending package for Iraq that no one in the Senate dared oppose. In addition to keeping the Iraq debacle alive, the bill increases the death benefit for US service members from a paltry $12,000 to a more reasonable $100,000, raises the maximum life insurance benefit to $400,000, and provides $100,000 for those who suffer a severe injury.
So, naturally, the bill passed unanimously in the Senate Tuesday, on the strength of Republican support-the-troops blackmail. House members had approved it by 261-161 back in February as a stand-alone measure, although that was before it became the test of patriotism over which the Senate so eagerly buckled. Last week, the House passed the spending bill to which Real ID had been attached by 368-58.
US Representative James Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin) hailed the bill's success, which he claimed will "assist in our war-on-terror efforts to disrupt terrorist operations and help secure our borders."
It will do no such thing, of course, but it will give the federal government long-sought control over the movements of Americans, which is exactly what about half of its boosters had in mind. It will also make life more difficult for undocumented immigrants, which the remaining boosters had in mind.
Within two years' time, state ID cards and driver's licenses will have to satisfy federal standards. The new cards must feature anti-counterfeiting measures and machine readable elements (i.e., RFID) approved by DHS, and anything else that DHS thinks would be useful. The language is open-ended, meaning that DHS can issue new requirements as it sees fit, whenever some new gimmick for invading the privacy of citizens captures its imagination.
State motor-vehicle departments will be required to verify each driver's Social Security number and current address, and maintain their digital photographs in a huge database along with all other information that DHS wants them to collect. States that fail to link up their databases will become ineligible for federal money.
Soon it will be impossible to obtain government services, travel domestically by hired car, intercity bus, train, or plane, enter a building, open a bank account, pay by check, drink at a pub, enroll in school, or obtain insurance without having your unique federal ID card scanned at the gate. The potential for mission creep, and for mass data aggregation, is absolutely unlimited. DHS can decree that photographs are not enough; it may decide that it also wants fingerprints, iris scans, and DNA information encoded in the cards, and in its massive databases. And Congress has given it the power to decree that, and more.
Yet the scheme is hopelessly flawed even without the attendant mass privacy invasion. Once these cards become established, they will not be challenged because they're "technologically advanced." They've got anti-counterfeiting technology, and they're all hooked up to a massive government database.
They will become the most valuable fraudulent ID documents available, and the black market supplying them will flourish in unprecedented splendor. Criminals will get them. Terrorists will get them. Illegal aliens will get them. They'll pay a lot more than they do today for identity documents, but these will be worth the expense. They'll be really convincing.
The dwindling privacy of US citizens will be eroded dramatically for no real gain in security. Much money will be spent, much privacy will be lost, and states will lose a significant measure of sovereignty, for no purpose but making a collection of middle-class control freaks in Congress feel important. The whole project would be a sad waste of money and effort, if it wasn't actually harmful.
But, hey, terrorism... ®
Congress passes Gestapo ID legislation
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Published Wednesday 11th May 2005 11:12 GMT
What say you "greater good" proponents now? Feel like you've been played for a patsy yet?
You should.
You are.
acushla
05-11-2005, 03:55 PM
The roadblock statement is interesting in as much as it implies that once the RCMP know who the perpetrator is through information released by the IP...now there are other avenues it can take to arrest the person...to which I reply that once the IP have revealed the identity it shouldn't matter how you use that information to arrest him...that arrest comes precisely because the IP informed you of who to look at.
You're overthinking it. I use the term roadblock merely to indicate an obstruction to the release of personal information, in this case one that should legally be there.
Do you think a list could be made up of situations where, because of the nature of your crime, you do not enjoy the same rights and privilages as people who live within the boundries of the law?
Oh yes there was.
The ISP.
The police had the expressly given consent, didn't they? Though I may have mistaken your point there. As my point was more about lobbyist (which you also mentioned) trying to gain benefit for companies or organisations. The ISP didn't benefit anything from the situation as far as I can see.
I'd be looking into sueing the ISP for breach of the Privacy Act right about now if I were in that guy's shoes.
Bear in mind that you abused a kid.
Sting operations, more human engineering investigative techniques...
You probably know more about these, but I guess that these simply cost more and take more time?
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:06 PM
The end NEVER justifies the means.
Never has, never will.
Being a Black Panther and a follower of Malcolm X...I strongly disagree.
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:13 PM
They don't go into your house when you break traffic rules.
Actually...that isn't true.
I have a friend who had had a little too much to drink one night and was reported to the police through his licence plate number of weaving on the major highway 401.
At two o'clock in the morning there was a knock on his front door...it was the police. They came in...determined my friend was drunk...arrested him...went through the courts...the judge agreed...suspended drivers license for one year.
I will be happy to supply you with more details if you feel you require them.
Here's the kicker...friend or not...I say good...being drunk and driving shouldn't be ignored because of some vague notion of rights being abused.
Whose rights? Mine...to have safe highways...or the drunk driver...because of 'privacy' (or whatever) concerns?
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally Posted by Roj
I'd be looking into sueing the ISP for breach of the Privacy Act right about now if I were in that guy's shoes..
Originally Posted by Qaz
Bear in mind that you abused a kid.
Qaz...you raise a good issue here...to think that the person who has perpetrated this most heinous of crimes somehow now has the 'right' to sue the people who 'blew the whistle' on him...and that's all it is...'blowing the whistle.'
You know Roj, I don't understand your priorities. You cry foul when a company like CL dupe the public by making sub-standard sound boards to the extend that you will write letters to educate a tone deaf populace...but when it comes to something that is actually important...well, all of a sudden criminals have rights over and above their crimes.
Something very wrong here.
The police had the expressly given consent, didn't they?
Did they ask the person whose IP it was? That's whose permission was needed for the ISP to release the information. They couldnt. That would have blown their entire investigation wouldn't it.
So NO.
Then they didn't have consent.
Though I may have mistaken your point there. As my point was more about lobbyist (which you also mentioned) trying to gain benefit for companies or organisations. The ISP didn't benefit anything from the situation as far as I can see.
No - but it may now face liability due to breach of the Act. you see, you don't have to profit form it in any way - you just have to do it.
Bear in mind that you abused a kid.
Moi?
You probably know more about these, but I guess that these simply cost more and take more time?
That they do.
Look, in case you don't remember, I have three kids. I do NOT condone child porn. However I do condone privacy and due process. Too much gets sacrificed to expediency.
Actually...that isn't true.
I have a friend who had had a little too much to drink one night and was reported to the police through his licence plate number of weaving on the major highway 401.
At two o'clock in the morning there was a knock on his front door...it was the police. They came in...determined my friend was drunk...arrested him...went through the courts...the judge agreed...suspended drivers license for one year.
I will be happy to supply you with more details if you feel you require them.
Here's the kicker...friend or not...I say good...being drunk and driving shouldn't be ignored because of some vague notion of rights being abused.
Whose rights? Mine...to have safe highways...or the drunk driver...because of 'privacy' (or whatever) concerns?
And they had a warrant I hope?
Originally Posted by Roj
I'd be looking into sueing the ISP for breach of the Privacy Act right about now if I were in that guy's shoes..
Originally Posted by Qaz
Bear in mind that you abused a kid.
Qaz...you raise a good issue here...to think that the person who has perpetrated this most heinous of crimes somehow now has the 'right' to sue the people who 'blew the whistle' on him...and that's all it is...'blowing the whistle.'
You know Roj, I don't understand your priorities. You cry foul when a company like CL dupe the public by making sub-standard sound boards to the extend that you will write letters to educate a tone deaf populace...but when it comes to something that is actually important...well, all of a sudden criminals have rights over and above their crimes.
Something very wrong here.
As you well know, I don't try and convict people the way you do (the Michael Jackson discussion was ample evidence of that). The accused have their shot to prove their innocence and also to use the same system that all do - in case they really ARE innocent. They don't lose their rights - just in case they shouldn't lose them.
I'm glad the justice system isn't run by folks who believe otherwise - else we'd be regressing to witch trials in Salem.
The system isn't perfect - but the alternative is biased horror with no checks and balances.
I won't go there.
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:36 PM
Look, in case you don't remember, I have three kids. I do NOT condone child porn. However I do condone privacy and due process. Too much gets sacrificed to expediency.
Given the scenario I painted earlier involving one of your children I'd be curious how your wife felt about 'Too much gets sacrificed to expediency'?
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:38 PM
And they had a warrant I hope?
Nope!
Given the scenario I painted earlier involving one of your children I'd be curious how your wife felt about 'Too much gets sacrificed to expediency'?
She'd have to live with it.
As would I.
Nope!
I wonder how far I'd have to go to make them look like fools in court?
By the way, I despise drunk drivers too. One crippled a very dear friend of mine for life.
Edit:
Did some checking.
If the cop had a complaint on the license number AND that complaint specifies a male driving, they have reasonable and probable grounds to go into the guys house. No warrant is necessary. This is best ullustrated by the following:
You smack your girlfriend and she's bleeding. A cop rings your doorbell. You open the door a crack and say "yes officer?". The cop can't see in. He has no probable cause and can do absolutely nothing. However, if you open the door far enought for him to see your girlfriend with a bloody nose, he now has probable cause and can force his way in without a warrant.
HAMMEROGOD
05-11-2005, 04:46 PM
All of our so-called 'Privacy' is subject to the whim of the first Judge willing to issue a warrent or other necessary paperwork.
And thus has it always been.
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:47 PM
Let's just remind ourselves of the particular situation we are discussing here:
Essentially the story is this: A Toronto man was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty to possessing thousands of computer photos of adults engaged in sex acts with children six and younger.
He had sent four photos and a video over the Internet to a Toronto police officer working undercover in a child porn chat room.
A search warrant was used to obtain, through his Internet provider, the address of a home near Lansdowne Avenue and Dundas Street he shared with his boyfriend.
As I see it...the key element here is that the crime has been committed...all the police are doing is finding out the address of the criminal.
Since the IP know that information then I think they are obligated to hand that information over. If you or I knew the whereabouts of this individual and refused to reveal where he/she was, we would be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice.
What pleases me about this is that it is apparent that the courts in Canada. given this case, seem to agree that IP services are required to hand over this type of information in these types of cases.
It would seem that rational, sensible, men still exist.
What about my suggestion of your rights to privacy being waived when you sign up for an Internet Provider...via the I accept/I decline...idea?
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:54 PM
I wonder how far I'd have to go to make them look like fools in court?
By the way, I despise drunk drivers too. One crippled a very dear friend of mine for life.
Edit:
Did some checking.
If the cop had a complaint on the license number AND that complaint specifies a male driving, they have reasonable and probable grounds to go into the guys house. No warrant is necessary. This is best ullustrated by the following:
You smack your girlfriend and she's bleeding. A cop rings your doorbell. You open the door a crack and say "yes officer?". The cop can't see in. He has no probable cause and can do absolutely nothing. However, if you open the door far enought for him to see your girlfriend with a bloody nose, he now has probable cause and can force his way in without a warrant.
I think if this had been my post and I did the edit...I would also have taken care to remove the first line.
It sort of leaves the impression of 'who's the fool now?'...if you know what I mean. (hehehe)
acushla
05-11-2005, 04:57 PM
All of our so-called 'Privacy' is subject to the whim of the first Judge willing to issue a warrant or other necessary paperwork.
And thus has it always been.
Well, yes, you are correct...but it is equally true that the first Judge is not necessarily the last Judge...and decisions made by the first Judge can be overruled late on down the road...sometimes resulting in the freeing of a guilty party. (...or have I just been watching too much 'Law and Order"?)
So that first Judge has to be pretty careful...and know what he's doing.
Did they ask the person whose IP it was? That's whose permission was needed for the ISP to release the information. They couldnt. That would have blown their entire investigation wouldn't it.
So NO.
Then they didn't have consent.
First I want to say that I hate legal texts. But if I got it right, Privacy Act only applies for government institutions, which ISP is not.
And if I didn't get it right, the following must be the part you're referring to:
(1) Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.
Note the number one. There is part two too.
(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed
And relating to that there is following:
(c) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or warrant issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information;
Police had a warrant.
Too much gets sacrificed to expediency.
What exactly was sacrificed at this case?
I think if this had been my post and I did the edit...I would also have taken care to remove the first line.
It sort of leaves the impression of 'who's the fool now?'...if you know what I mean. (hehehe)
Nah - audit trail. And I'm not perfect nor do I pretend to be.
acushla
05-11-2005, 05:00 PM
You smack your girlfriend and she's bleeding.
Whose been talking?
acushla
05-11-2005, 05:03 PM
I'm not perfect nor do I pretend to be.
Nothing to add here...I just wanted to see this statement again
Case reshash snipped.
Quick analysis before I go back to work:
- probable cause based on evidence gathered (movie download)
- IP addy hard to nail down though, unless done with strict date and time corelation (matched to download)
- even then, difficulties with validity if the guy had a router - after all, who was using the computer at that time?
- now you're into account name and / or password on the computer. If no password and general account with multiple users on machine - you're a bust.
Back to wrok...
Nothing to add here...I just wanted to see this statement again
You forgot the more important phrase:
"audit trail".
acushla
05-11-2005, 05:26 PM
I'm not perfect nor do I pretend to be.
Didn't forget anything...just wanted to see this statement again. And again.
Shadowraven
05-11-2005, 05:58 PM
Congress passes Gestapo ID legislation
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Published Wednesday 11th May 2005 11:12 GMT
Just another example of how wonderful the administration in Washington is nowadays. They are making themselves look more like a Facist regime everyday. The Republicans have been trying to get something like this for years, but couldn't get it to go through. I don't find it surprising that they attached this to a bill that forced others to approve it. After all they are the party best suited to extortion, fraud, and dirty tricks to get their agenda passed.
I agree that people in government can, and do, abuse their power. Dubya is a great example of that. That is why it is so important that if privacy is allowed to be invaded, as in this child porn case, it is made absolutely clear when it is allowable. I feel that it is only allowable in the cases I mentioned in the post above. If we don't start making it perfectly clear that we will hold politicians accountable for their actions, or lack thereof, we can't expect to get much more than we have now. The only way that a democracy can remain free is if the citizens remain educated and involved in their government. Anything else is just handing power to the people least deserving of it.
Thomas Jefferson said it best in the following quotes:
"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust." --To M. van der Kemp, 1812.
"I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." --To Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
"The influence over government must be shared among all the people. If every individual which composes their mass participates of the ultimate authority, the government will be safe, because corrupting the whole mass will exceed any private resources of wealth, and public ones cannot be provided but by levies on the people. In this case every man would have to pay his own price." --Notes on Virginia
Shadowraven
05-11-2005, 06:20 PM
We can't hold to an ideal if someone is getting seriously hurt by it. If someone has committed a serious victimizing crime, and there is proof if it, then it is certainly alright for the ISP to do as it did. With one caveat, there must always be an accompanying court order to do it! DL'g music and movies would hardly rise up to this standard. If the industry is too stupid to make the changes it so obviously needs to make, it's not the governments job to help them out of it.
As for the ends justifying the means, I can't disagree more strongly. That argument has been used throughout history to justify the most horrendous atrocities the world has seen. Sometimes it may be true, but too often it is not. Oft times there are better, more reasonable methods, to acheive an end, but the people involved are too lazy to do it.
Always remember that we are ultimately responsible for what we allow our governments to do. If we make no attempt to educate ourselves, and hold them to account for their actions, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Make no mistake about it. Even in Amerika we can do it. Unfortunately too many people here have taken to sticking their hands in the sand and ignoring the problem. They seem to trust Dubya and believe what he says. They'll be the same people screaning for his head later, because they ley themselves be fooled by him. Who's at fault there Dubya, or the idiot who was too lazy to think for themselves? It will be easier for them to blame him. That absolves them for any responsibility for doing nothing change anything.
I'll never stop trying to keep myself educated and working for a change!
Shadowraven
05-11-2005, 06:21 PM
Didn't forget anything...just wanted to see this statement again. And again.
Play nice with the other lifeforms, acushla!
rorythedog
05-11-2005, 06:29 PM
It never fails to amaze me how willing some folks are to throw away their hard-won rights.
Seems many people have very selective memories.
You'd think paedophilia never existed before the internet. Who are you guys kidding?
You guys will throw away your rights and for what?
You really think sickos will stop?
I doubt it.
We WILL lose these rights though. And they won't be won back easily.
jkrzok
05-11-2005, 06:30 PM
My personal favorite Jefferson quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
It never fails to amaze me how willing some folks are to throw away their hard-won rights.
Seems many people have very selective memories.
You'd think paedophilia never existed before the internet. Who are you guys kidding?
You guys will throw away your rights and for what?
You really think sickos will stop?
I doubt it.
We WILL lose these rights though. And they won't be won back easily.
The above is pretty much where I'm coming from.
Repeat after me:
There Is No Greater Good
It Is A Myth Used To Justify Questionable Things
Generally The Question Is "Good For Who?"
The Answer Usually Identifies Those Who Want Control
I'll never support that mindset - on that path ALWAYS lies destruction.
It's inevitable.
My personal favorite Jefferson quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
You have good examples from good teachers.
Never cheapen them.
acushla
05-11-2005, 07:31 PM
As for the ends justifying the means, I can't disagree more strongly. That argument has been used throughout history to justify the most horrendous atrocities the world has seen. Sometimes it may be true, but...
Can't have it both ways Shadowraven...either ends justify means or they don't.
I am firmly on the side that ends do in deed justify means.
rorythedog
05-11-2005, 07:37 PM
Can't have it both ways Shadowraven...either ends justify means or they don't.
I am firmly on the side that ends do in deed justify means.
Have no fear then, we'll all come to vsit when you're banged up for indecent exposure.
Can't have it both ways Shadowraven...either ends justify means or they don't.
I am firmly on the side that ends do in deed justify means.
You can't have it both ways acushla.
THAT road leads DIRECTLY to anarchy, something you claim to be opposed to.
acushla
05-11-2005, 10:34 PM
You can't have it both ways acushla.
THAT road leads DIRECTLY to anarchy, something you claim to be opposed to.
Um...exactly when did I say I was opposed to anarchy?
What I recall saying was, in response to your 'ever hear of the phrase not in God's hands so long as I have two of my own?' (or the like) was: 'Ever hear of anarchy?'
Not that I was opposed to it.
Listen...lets go all out. Imagine a scenario where the RCMP have evidence that ties in directly with other intelligence agencies around the world that at noon hour tomorrow a terrorist group let by X is going to detonate a 'dirty bomb' and release a vial of 'plague' (early wrote plaque) in the middle of Toronto. Problem is the ONLY way they can get to X is through his IP provider...and there is no time for a warrant.
Before you give a knee jerk answer consider what we're saying here. Suffice it to say that the consequences are not only immediate but far reaching as well.
Is some theory, an idea painted in the land of abstracts, really worth upholding...or do we go with the real world and save a lot of lives etc.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to be somebody who defends the ideal given that picture...and I would prey to God that you are NOT in charge when that situation presented itself.
acushla
05-11-2005, 10:38 PM
You have good examples from good teachers.
Never cheapen them.
I wonder if you would include Nelson Mandela as a 'good' teacher.
Ever wonder what he was jailed for?
madjo
05-11-2005, 11:11 PM
I wonder if you would include Nelson Mandela as a 'good' teacher.
Ever wonder what he was jailed for?
because of a little thing called "apartheid"... which is abolished now.. although you wouldn't say it, if you visit the slums in South Africa (or anywhere else in the world for all that matters)...
I don't exactly know what Mandela was imprisoned for, but I do know that he has fought a good cause...
acushla
05-11-2005, 11:17 PM
because of a little thing called "apartheid"... which is abolished now.. although you wouldn't say it, if you visit the slums in South Africa (or anywhere else in the world for all that matters)...
I don't exactly know what Mandela was imprisoned for, but I do know that he has fought a good cause...
He was an anarchist and led a group of 'rebels' (today they would be branded 'terrorists') around the country side blowing up things like Power Lines.
Sometimes change against the powers that be can only be accomplished through radical acts of civil disobedience. If that isn't a clear example of 'by any means necessary'...then I don't know what is.
Sometimes the answers in life are not what we would like them to be.
:
It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe...the Government had left us no other choice."
From 'The Mandela Biography'
For more on this go here:
http://www.anc.org.za/people/mandela.html
Shadowraven
05-12-2005, 06:40 AM
Can't have it both ways Shadowraven...either ends justify means or they don't.
I am firmly on the side that ends do in deed justify means.
Actually, I can. I've lived long enough, and seen enough, to know that almost nothing is an absolute. No absolute good or evil, and certainly no absolutes of morality.
As Asimov once wrote in the Foundation books "Never let your morals get in the way of doing what is right."
What I'm saying is that the ends can justify the means, but it depends on both poles of that argument, to make that determination. Again nothing is an absolute. That said, I feel that the ends don't usually justify the means of accomplishing them. At least not in a lot of cases I've seen, where real people are getting hurt by that justification.
Same can be said for never giving in on the privacy issue. I agree that it can, and will, be abused if we're not careful. It all depends on us. It's easy for us to sit here and say we won't allow it to happen, when we're not the ones getting hurt. Having directly seen the result of that pain, I can't, in good conscience, allow something like that to happen. Especially when there is something that can be done about it. Sometimes you just have to violate your own code to do the right thing. I'm willing to allow that violation, if is done by the book, under the law. Not for the "greater good", which is politician speak for violating your rights, but to allow justice to operate freely.
You wonder who watches the watchers? That's our job folks. If we refuse to do it, no one else will. If you don't like what the government does, then do what I try to do. Get up off your arse and try doing something to make a change!
acushla
05-12-2005, 06:54 AM
Have no fear then, we'll all come to visit when you're banged up for indecent exposure.
This is out of context, rorythedog (I'm just LOVING Preston, btw)...we had established in the case we are discussing that the crime had been committed...they were simply getting the address so they could find him.
I dare say that x number of years ago we were not in this position...but the world has changed drastically since then.
As I had mentioned somewhere before...if you knew of the whereabouts of a 'fugitive' and refused to disclose that person's whereabouts...you would be charged with obstruction of justice and arrested.
Personally I don't see much difference between this situation and 'whistle blowing'.
Tell me...can you not come up with one scenario as it would apply to yourself that you would in fact be eager for the IP to reveal the culprits address?
Be honest!
Shadowraven
05-12-2005, 07:03 AM
This is out of context, rorythedog (I'm just LOVING Preston, btw)...we had established in the case we are discussing that the crime had been committed...they were simply getting the address so they could find him.
I dare say that x number of years ago we were not in this position...but the world has changed drastically since then.
As I had mentioned somewhere before...if you knew of the whereabouts of a 'fugitive' and refused to disclose that person's whereabouts...you would be charged with obstruction of justice and arrested.
Personally I don't see much difference between this situation and 'whistle blowing'.
Tell me...can you not come up with one scenario as it would apply to yourself that you would in fact be eager for the IP to reveal the culprits address?
Be honest!
Good example that. I'd have to say I agree with it as well.
acushla
05-12-2005, 07:13 AM
What I'm saying is that the ends can justify the means, but it depends on both poles of that argument, to make that determination. Again nothing is an absolute. That said, I feel that the ends don't usually justify the means of accomplishing them. At least not in a lot of cases I've seen, where real people are getting hurt by that justification.
Originally posted by Roj
The end NEVER justifies the means.
Never has, never will.
Take civilization down that road and soon you won't have either - no covilization, no road.
Shadowraven...in part I think my response to you was influenced by this earlier post from Roj...
what I am suggesting when I say you can't have it both ways is that once you have established that there is one situation where ends do justify means then you have created a world when ends do in deed justify means.
I think the trick is to be certain that the ends are justified.
All of this, it seems to me, begs the larger question of whether or not good and evil exist as anything but concepts.
I agree with you when it comes to human behaviour that there are in fact, no absolutes, and each case has to be weighed on its own merit.
Judged on its own merit I think the IP did the correct thing. God help them if they arrested the wrong man though...but the point here, in context of our story, is they got it right. Therefore the ends did justify the means.
Letting this guy escape because of some notion of the 'greater good' of individual rights in the population at large does NOBODY any good. Who amongst that number would think that the right decision was to not disclose the address in order to protect them of the reduction of their rights? Who amongst that populace would be proud of that decision?
It's getting late and I'm tired...so no more of this...for now.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.