Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > internet watch foundation

Reply
Thread Tools

internet watch foundation

 
 
catchme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
richard wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:47:59 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>>
>>> I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
>>> various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
>>> as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
>>> pornography.
>>>
>>> To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
>>> UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
>>> subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
>>> age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>>>
>>> I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
>> >from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last
>>> time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are
>>> you going to let them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
>>> doesn't conform to British laws?
>>> WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the world again?
>>>
>>> Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just sit there,
>>> trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....." mean jack ****
>>> anymore.

>>
>> The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else newsguy.com
>> wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download that stuff find another
>> provider, scumbag.

>
> Either way, I think it should OUR choice. A few years ago, giganews,
> among others, were dropping certain so called KP groups. All that did
> was to force the damn fools into using other groups. So giganews quit
> coddling to the various watch dog groups and reinstated the groups.
> It's kind of like the few watch dog groups of the trucking industry
> who are demanding they get what they want. While none of them know a
> damn thing about trucking.
> Let's say you haunt an MP3 group. Somebody comes along and posts a
> thousand images of nude little kids. Legality aside for the moment.
> Does IWF have the legal right to tell anyone to shut the group down?
> What's wrong with enforcing the laws upon the people that post the
> ****?
>
> I agree, the IWF oughta keep their damn mits out of enforcing the
> laws.
>
> Next thing ya know, your website gets shut down because they don't
> like your content.
>
> Just like with the RIAA crap.
>
>
> --
>
> A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
> Mark Twain(attributed)


i think the person who created the ng, and therefore the 'moderator',
should decide upon the content, and remove posts if necesary if they do
not meet legal conditions, and/or if they are exceedingly off topic.
also, one may complain about individual posters whose content is illegal....
but you are correct in that an entire ng should be banned because of
content- HOWEVER, ultimately, it is the IP's decision as to the content
that they want to host.
whether or not to host newsgroups, and how which groups- even how MANY
groups, are all up to the IP.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
catchme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
chuckcar wrote:

>
> Any Sucessful facist/repressive state has always started by repressing
> things that everyone agreed with censoring. Some time after that the
> wierd stuff happens, usually without people complaining or noticing.
> This "variety" of porn has been around usenet since the beginning of
> the alt.binaries hiarchy, so is removing it an improvement to the world,
> or just a precursor to more rigid censorship? Neither you nor I know,
> but I know that this can be a path to darkness, never enlightenment.
>


i think the web world would be a lot less cluttered without "M15" posts....
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
john sumner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
catchme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news9bxj.6289$pM4.3472@pd7urf1no:
> i think the web world would be a lot less cluttered without "M15"
> posts....

I think you should get lost.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ellis_jay
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
catchme wrote:
> richard wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:47:59 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been
>>>> dropping various binaries groups based upon the fact that the
>>>> watchdog organization known as intnernet watch foundation (IWF)
>>>> has told them the group contains child pornography.


>>>> I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let
>>>> some bloody bloke from a foreign country tell me what it is I
>>>> can't view if I want to. The last time that was tried, the Brits
>>>> lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are you going to let
>>>> them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
>>>> doesn't conform to British laws?
>>>> WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the
>>>> world again?


>>> The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else
>>> newsguy.com wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download
>>> that stuff find another provider, scumbag.

>>
>> Either way, I think it should OUR choice.


>> I agree, the IWF oughta keep their damn mits out of enforcing the
>> laws.
>>
>> Next thing ya know, your website gets shut down because they don't
>> like your content.
>>
>> Just like with the RIAA crap.

>
> i think the person who created the ng, and therefore the 'moderator',
> should decide upon the content, and remove posts if necesary if they
> do
> not meet legal conditions,


Yeah, so should the guy who created the postal service..............huh?

Legal schmeegal.......legal is nothing more than this group of people giving
that group of people guns to shoot that other group of people. Let me leave
you with a few thoughts from great and famous people ( and one infamous and
with whom I agree with wholeheartedly):

"Nature cares little about laws and states; her passion is for the family
and the child. If she can preserve these she is indifferent to governments
and dynasties and smiles at those who busy themselves with transferring
constitutions."
____Will Durant

And as George Carlin has said about the demise of Earth that the "Universe
would hardly even burp" if pollution or other causes destroyed this Blue
Planet.

And then there is this too consider:

If he who breaks the law is not punished, he who obeys it is cheated. This,
and this alone, is why
lawbreakers ought to be punished: to authenticate as good, and to encourage
as useful, law-abiding behavior.
The aim of criminal law cannot be correction or deterrence; it can only be
the maintenance of the legal order.
__Thomas Szasz

"...HE WHO OBEYS IT IS CHEATED." Hey, he is one wild and crazy guy, eh?

But I think Szasz was really thinking of maintenance and protection of the
status quo and the powers that be. My problem with all that is in the
question " Who decides what is good?" In that, I hold that notions, found
everywhere and throughout all populations and among all peoples, whether
they live in concrete structures or mud huts, of right and wrong are more
worthy than any picadillied local-yocal flighty needs to pass rules for
others to live by...and do so or risk the point of the gun.

I mean, in some places in America if you spit on the sidewalk you can go to
jail, but in others-not so much.

But Szasz redeems himself when he says:

"The Nazis said they had a Jewish problem. We say we have a drug abuse
problem. Actually,
'Jewish problem' was the name the Germans gave to their persecution of the
Jews; 'drug abuse problem'
is the name we give to our persecution of people who use certain drugs. "

At least he does admit the subjectivity of the essences of "legal" in his
own small way.

The real problem, since we must have law (i.e., legal) is who decides to
decide who decides 'legal' and in that Thomas Szasz is correct when he
recognizes this simple fact in as much

"It seems to me that--at least in our scientific theories of behavior--we
have failed to accept
the simple fact that human relations are inherently fraught with
difficulties and that to make
them even relatively harmonious requires much patience and hard work. "

....and therefore the need for order and for deciders. But what the hell, I
am just a Rebel anyway so who gives a hoot.

Take away the right to say "****" and you take away the right to say "****
the government.
__Lenny Bruce (1923 - 1966)

Amen, brother Lenny, you go boy!!

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government. ___Edward Abbey


 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:32:54 -0800, "Mike Easter" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>> I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been
>> dropping various binaries groups

>
>> What are you gonna do about it?

>
>Let me see if I'm into your post crystal clear.
>
>Your newsservice is dropping some groups and you want to know what /I'm/
>going to do about it -- or what /we/ are going to do about it.
>
>If /I/ want newsgroups one newsserver doesn't carry, I get those groups
>from a different newsserver; I'm completely confused about why you want
>someone else to do something about /your/ possible problem.
>
>If you are trying to access kp kiddieporn, you should do so very very
>carefully or you will be in jail for a very long time. And, then when
>you finally get out, if you do, there won't be anyplace where you will
>be allowed to live.


In the UK, Australia, Venezuela, and many other countries, persons
under the age of 18 ( or what age is considered to be an adult ), may
not pose nude. Period. These countries also have other definitions as
to what is "child pornography". In the USA, nudity, does not eqaul
pornography.

Are you going to let some foreign country dictate that their laws also
apply to you simply because you have access to usenet or the internet?
Not me.


--

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Mark Twain(attributed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:39:53 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>richard wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:47:59 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been dropping
>>>>various binaries groups based upon the fact that the watchdog organization known
>>>>as intnernet watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains child
>>>>pornography.
>>>>
>>>>To my knowledge, the IWF, an organization based in the United Kingdom, is using
>>>>UK laws as their basis for their complaints. UK laws and USA laws differ on this
>>>>subject. In the USA, mere nudity is not illegal. Even if the person is under the
>>>>age of 18. See title 18 USC 2256.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let some bloody bloke
>>>>from a foreign country tell me what it is I can't view if I want to. The last
>>>>time that was tried, the Brits lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are
>>>>you going to let them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
>>>>doesn't conform to British laws?
>>>>WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the world again?
>>>>
>>>>Ok enough of my bloody soap box. What are you gonna do about it? Just sit there,
>>>>trash this and do nothing? Or doesn't "We, the people....." mean jack ****
>>>>anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>>The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else newsguy.com
>>>wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download that stuff find another
>>>provider, scumbag.

>>
>>Either way, I think it should OUR choice. A few years ago, giganews,
>>among others, were dropping certain so called KP groups. All that did
>>was to force the damn fools into using other groups. So giganews quit
>>coddling to the various watch dog groups and reinstated the groups.
>>It's kind of like the few watch dog groups of the trucking industry
>>who are demanding they get what they want. While none of them know a
>>damn thing about trucking.
>>Let's say you haunt an MP3 group. Somebody comes along and posts a
>>thousand images of nude little kids. Legality aside for the moment.
>>Does IWF have the legal right to tell anyone to shut the group down?
>>What's wrong with enforcing the laws upon the people that post the
>>****?

>
>Alright Richard, I'll bite. Let's say somebody comes to any group and posts
>illegal pics. Yes, they <the authorities, police, FBI, ETC..> should go after
>the person who posted the stuff. But here's one to wrap your mind around -
>those illegal files are now residing on the news servers disks, which would make
>the owner of the news server(s) guilty of possession. I would argue that it the
>responsibility of the provider to make reasonable efforts to ensure that such
>material is not available. Such reasonable efforts would include not carrying
>groups that are known to contain that material, immediately destroying any that
>gets through, and report the posters information to the authorities. It is a
>matter of liability and legal exposure for an NSP to carry illegal material, one
>headache that a good businessman would want to avoid.


It's already been tried and the state lost their case.
The news server owner does not know, let alone care, what or which
files may be illegal. As the court said, the news server is "acting as
a portal". Much like a news stand on the street can't be held liable
for the actions of the publisher. YOU are the publisher when posting
to usenet. So only YOU can be held liable for having published illegal
material.


>
>
>>I agree, the IWF oughta keep their damn mits out of enforcing the
>>laws.

>
>Yeah right. It's a terrible thing they do. Of course you've been an advocate
>of kiddy pics yourself, shall I post the Google links?


Shutting down a newsgroup won't stop the producers from posting their
crap.
When one did get shutdown before, somebody would create another one
without such an obvious name and post there.

>
>>Next thing ya know, your website gets shut down because they don't
>>like your content.
>>
>>Just like with the RIAA crap.

>
>Yup.


Oh and where's the RIAA when it comes to you recording a tv show
featuring some rock band? They can't do anything about that because
they don't know who's recording what. But it's just as illegal right?


--

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
Mark Twain(attributed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
Ohhhhhhhh **** it all.




 
Reply With Quote
 
Bucky Breeder
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
concerned adult USA citizen <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com,
> has been dropping various binaries groups based upon the
> fact that the watchdog organization known as intnernet
> watch foundation (IWF) has told them the group contains
> child pornography.



Whew! At least they're leaving the Australian NGs
alone where they show blokes ****ing sheeps in the
arses. (for now) "When they outlaw ****ing sheep
only outlaws will **** sheep!" Hmmm, or "... cold
dead fingers..." or something like that.

It's all just too confusing these days. <wipes tear>

--

My name is Bucky Breeder and I approve this message!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lcmNaXmjvs
 
Reply With Quote
 
catchme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
ellis_jay wrote:
> catchme wrote:
>> richard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 03:47:59 +0000 (UTC), G. Morgan
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> concerned adult USA citizen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have learned that the news service I use, newsguy.com, has been
>>>>> dropping various binaries groups based upon the fact that the
>>>>> watchdog organization known as intnernet watch foundation (IWF)
>>>>> has told them the group contains child pornography.

>
>>>>> I don't know about you, but I'm not about to sit still and let
>>>>> some bloody bloke from a foreign country tell me what it is I
>>>>> can't view if I want to. The last time that was tried, the Brits
>>>>> lost the battle and a new country was formed. Are you going to let
>>>>> them tell you you can't watch your favorite tv show because it
>>>>> doesn't conform to British laws?
>>>>> WTF is going on here. Are these damn Brits trying to dominate the
>>>>> world again?

>
>>>> The newsgroups in question probably did contain kiddy porn else
>>>> newsguy.com wouldn't have bothered, eh? If you want to download
>>>> that stuff find another provider, scumbag.
>>> Either way, I think it should OUR choice.

>
>>> I agree, the IWF oughta keep their damn mits out of enforcing the
>>> laws.
>>>
>>> Next thing ya know, your website gets shut down because they don't
>>> like your content.
>>>
>>> Just like with the RIAA crap.

>> i think the person who created the ng, and therefore the 'moderator',
>> should decide upon the content, and remove posts if necesary if they
>> do
>> not meet legal conditions,

>
> Yeah, so should the guy who created the postal service..............huh?
>
> Legal schmeegal.......legal is nothing more than this group of people giving
> that group of people guns to shoot that other group of people. Let me leave
> you with a few thoughts from great and famous people ( and one infamous and
> with whom I agree with wholeheartedly):
>
> "Nature cares little about laws and states; her passion is for the family
> and the child. If she can preserve these she is indifferent to governments
> and dynasties and smiles at those who busy themselves with transferring
> constitutions."
> ____Will Durant
>
> And as George Carlin has said about the demise of Earth that the "Universe
> would hardly even burp" if pollution or other causes destroyed this Blue
> Planet.
>
> And then there is this too consider:
>
> If he who breaks the law is not punished, he who obeys it is cheated. This,
> and this alone, is why
> lawbreakers ought to be punished: to authenticate as good, and to encourage
> as useful, law-abiding behavior.
> The aim of criminal law cannot be correction or deterrence; it can only be
> the maintenance of the legal order.
> __Thomas Szasz
>
> "...HE WHO OBEYS IT IS CHEATED." Hey, he is one wild and crazy guy, eh?
>
> But I think Szasz was really thinking of maintenance and protection of the
> status quo and the powers that be. My problem with all that is in the
> question " Who decides what is good?" In that, I hold that notions, found
> everywhere and throughout all populations and among all peoples, whether
> they live in concrete structures or mud huts, of right and wrong are more
> worthy than any picadillied local-yocal flighty needs to pass rules for
> others to live by...and do so or risk the point of the gun.
>
> I mean, in some places in America if you spit on the sidewalk you can go to
> jail, but in others-not so much.
>
> But Szasz redeems himself when he says:
>
> "The Nazis said they had a Jewish problem. We say we have a drug abuse
> problem. Actually,
> 'Jewish problem' was the name the Germans gave to their persecution of the
> Jews; 'drug abuse problem'
> is the name we give to our persecution of people who use certain drugs. "
>
> At least he does admit the subjectivity of the essences of "legal" in his
> own small way.
>
> The real problem, since we must have law (i.e., legal) is who decides to
> decide who decides 'legal' and in that Thomas Szasz is correct when he
> recognizes this simple fact in as much
>
> "It seems to me that--at least in our scientific theories of behavior--we
> have failed to accept
> the simple fact that human relations are inherently fraught with
> difficulties and that to make
> them even relatively harmonious requires much patience and hard work. "
>
> ...and therefore the need for order and for deciders. But what the hell, I
> am just a Rebel anyway so who gives a hoot.
>
> Take away the right to say "****" and you take away the right to say "****
> the government.
> __Lenny Bruce (1923 - 1966)
>
> Amen, brother Lenny, you go boy!!
>

yes, law is subjective- supposedly our Laws are given to us in
accordance with the moral standards of the People of the day.
We may not always agree with them- no, every person will undoubtedly
find SOME laws they DONT agree with- but for the most part, laws do fit
the current attitudes of those living.
immediately after 9/11, for example, americans thought that giving away
their freedoms to ensure greater security was the "right thing", and
those who werent demanding it of Bush, were at least accepting it.
criminals who hold up mom and pops might argue against gun laws
(everyone should have a gun!), and pawnshop laws (i need to fence my
stuff!), and even sentencing statutes (3 strikes? aw, ****!)...
but for those of us who have been robbed, we might feel that justice is
done.
For myself, i believe in the rehabilitive model of justice over that of
the punitive model which the US uses- but then, not being an american,
my opinion must deviate from the norm.
In terms of child sex, it has always been immoral, and therefore made
illegal.
THe Magna Carta in the 1400s stipulates that a child shall not consent
under 14 years of age- this is still in effect in many countries
(usually those of the former British Colonies, collectively known as
'the Commonwealth'), but also many countries have added definitions and
other age requirements and thus avoided contravening the Carta while
still updating their own Charters to meet with modern morals (here in
Canada it is the interpretation of the Carta that 14 is consent with
minors up to 16 years, and amendments to the Carta in subsequent
documents such as the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Charter, etc.
stipulates 16 for consent with adult, 18 to pose nude,....)
For myself, i am an uncle twice- if someone were to attempt to have
intercourse with my brother's children, i would be very angry indeed.
i do not consider them to be potential subjects of pornography, nor of a
pedophile's physical sexual urges.
thus, i, and most parents, aunts, uncles, granparents and great
grandparents, support laws which will protect them until they reach age
of maturity as defined by Law.
if this means seizing the harddrives of anyone who found to have posted
without deleting, pics of boys and girls nude under the age of 16,
and/or criminal prosecution, i am all for it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-27-2008
catchme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news9bxj.6289$pM4.3472@pd7urf1no:

> chuckcar wrote:
>
>>
>> Any Sucessful facist/repressive state has always started by
>> repressing things that everyone agreed with censoring. Some time
>> after that the wierd stuff happens, usually without people
>> complaining or noticing. This "variety" of porn has been around
>> usenet since the beginning of the alt.binaries hiarchy, so is
>> removing it an improvement to the world, or just a precursor to more
>> rigid censorship? Neither you nor I know, but I know that this can be
>> a path to darkness, never enlightenment.
>>

>
> i think the web world would be a lot less cluttered without "M15"
> posts....
>

MI5 doesn't *post* to the web, he posts to *usenet*.


--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Netscape Internet Foundation Classes Cycloneous Echevarria Java 0 02-16-2005 06:15 PM
Anyone with old Foundation? Zak VHDL 0 10-23-2003 05:03 AM
ISE Foundation 4.1i compatibility Davo VHDL 0 08-19-2003 05:53 PM
Conversion ALDEC Foundation to Webpack ISE 4.2 and later Thomas Bartzick VHDL 0 06-26-2003 07:51 AM



Advertisments