backtop

Internet Senator: Let’s Monitor All P2P
Tom Corelis (Blog) - April 17, 2008 4:25 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 103 comment(s) - last by Kaleid.. on Apr 23 at 8:47 PM
Comprehensive software monitors the internet for kiddie porn

Senator Joe Biden, a democrat from Delaware, has a new plan for combating kiddie porn on the internet: implement a nationwide P2P monitoring system.

It’s “pretty easy to pick out the person engaged in either transmitting or downloading violent scenes of rape, molestation,” said Biden, because all you have to do is look at the filenames. He cites a piece of software, known as “Operation Fairplay,” which currently sees use around the world and at regional Internet Crimes Against Children task forces in the U.S.

Operation Fairplay is a “comprehensive computer infrastructure” that gives law enforcement officers a view of the “big picture” of child pornography transfers around the country. Biden says Special Agent Flint Waters of the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office developed the program, and describes him as an expert in the field.

A description of the software as is witnessed by CNET says the software works similar to anti-P2P measures used by Hollywood enforcers: investigators patrol peer-to-peer networks for suspicious-looking for suspicious files, downloading anything they find of interest. Fairplay’s software retrieves the IP address for the investigator and is sometimes able to locate the offender’s computer on a map. Agents then track the offender on a “daily” basis, identifying them by their IP address and, in some cases, a “unique serial number” sourced from offender’s computer.

Special Agent Waters wouldn’t elaborate on what the serial number is comprised of, for fear of giving perpetrators information they could use to circumvent it. “It's unique to the computer, that's as far as I'll go,” he said, noting that “we're able to get it when they're transferring child pornography.”

Investigators have recorded almost 1.3 million of the unique serial numbers thus far, with about half of them residing in the United States – and that number is steadily increasing each month due to “extensive capturing” conducted since October 2005.

Fairplay is also capable of tracking the files themselves, monitoring where a file goes by its hashcode – often generated by the P2P client itself as a means of identifying identical files with different filenames.

According to Biden, the FBI’s “Innocent Images” unit only has 32 investigators working on the case – allowing the agency to tackle less than 2 percent of what he calls “known” cases of child pornography tracking on the internet. As a result, Biden is pushing the “Combating Child Exploitation Act,” which would authorize over $1 billion, spent over the next eight years, to hire an additional 250 agents for the child pornography unit and increase child pornography enforcement worldwide. “We can get our arms around it, the worst aspect of it,” said Biden, “if we provide the resources.”

Biden’s stance is unique in that he isn’t directly opposed to P2P as a whole, recognizing the technology’s use in legal situations. “Blaming this problem on peer-to-peer innovation,” he said, “is like blaming the interstate highway system when someone uses it to transport drugs.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Errmmm....
By ZaethDekar on 4/17/2008 6:22:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It’s “pretty easy to pick out the person engaged in either transmitting or downloading violent scenes of rape, molestation,” said Biden, because all you have to do is look at the filenames.


Umm, and why can't you just change the filename? I mean I understand the part where they read the hash but if everything is named 'Hello World!' then they would pretty much have to download all of the different files to see what is good vs bad.




RE: Errmmm....
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/17/2008 6:32:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Umm, and why can't you just change the filename?

Shhhh... the first rule about changing filenames is you do not talk about changing filenames ...


RE: Errmmm....
By murphyslabrat on 4/17/2008 6:44:58 PM , Rating: 1
Then why are you still talking about changing filenames?


RE: Errmmm....
By GhandiInstinct on 4/17/2008 7:11:51 PM , Rating: 5
He's talking about the rule about changing filenames..


RE: Errmmm....
By walk2k on 4/17/2008 8:09:51 PM , Rating: 3
the hash won't change though


RE: Errmmm....
By afkrotch on 4/21/2008 3:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
It will if you zip it.


RE: Errmmm....
By murphyslabrat on 4/17/2008 9:20:03 PM , Rating: 4
You're breaking the rule too.


RE: Errmmm....
By Oregonian2 on 4/18/2008 6:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
You mean changing the filename of the Pope's photo (taken on his recent birthday talking to Pres. Bush) to something related to child porn?

Does that get the sender thrown into jail, or does the Pope get thrown into jail the next time he visits?


RE: Errmmm....
By CvP on 4/17/2008 8:15:53 PM , Rating: 3
...and the second rule about changing filenames is you do not talk about changing filenames.


RE: Errmmm....
By adam00 on 4/18/2008 11:26:51 AM , Rating: 5
If this is your first time here, you have to change a file name.


RE: Errmmm....
By mindless1 on 4/18/2008 7:14:20 AM , Rating: 4
I suspect the remark about filenames was just one example of a way to identify something that would warrant further scrutiny. You can be fairly suspicious of a file is named something suggesting child pron but it doesn't mean that other intel would be ignored.

Ultimately if these folks are looking to combat child pron, they are in the same boat as those trying to acquire and distribute it, that one way or the other it has to be described enough /somewhere/ that people aren't just downloading random files but instead are trying to acquire child pron. For example if you wanted to download a game demo, you wouldn't go to some unknown site with no mention of being related to gaming at all, click on an unlabled link and download a file named "download.zip", you somehow found out what, where, when to get it.


RE: Errmmm....
By DOSGuy on 4/18/2008 9:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
When you search for something on a P2P file server, the matches are going to be based on either filenames or tags, so the simple answer to your question is "because if you change the filename, no one will be able to find it".

Of course, the people who are creating and distributing the largest amount of child pornography aren't stupid enough to use descriptive filenames. My limited knowledge of the subject is that the worst offenders don't use P2P, but meet at secret websites that require payment by credit card, and sometimes require members to already have at least 1000 pieces of child pornography, presumably to prove that they aren't with law enforcement, or that they have something to trade. As for those who would risk distributing child pornography by P2P, they would invent code words that no one would be searching for to elude any system that searches for child pornography by filename. Only trusted members would know the secret word to search for.

My guess is that relying on filenames would catch the clueless and curious, but not the worst offenders. Either Biden doesn't know what he's talking about, or the system is more sophisticated than the filename example that he gave.


RE: Errmmm....
By Adonlude on 4/18/2008 4:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Have you guys ever seen typical internet pron file names (no im not a sicko)?

Jennasomething13yrolddoesthiswiththathorseanddog@ #$#$ doingneighborsparakeet@#$*7kiddiepronlubelargehoote rs.mpg

I am predicting a few false positives.


RE: Errmmm....
By othercents on 4/18/2008 3:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
The reverse is true too. Why not flood the P2P system with crude vulgar claymation with file names that would get flagged. Actually it doesn't have to be crude or vulgar either. Then they will spending a ton of time just trying to find out what is good and bad. Right now there is definitely too much traffic to be able to parse through.

Other


As usual, Democrats miss the big picture.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 7:11:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
“We can get our arms around it, the worst aspect of it,” said Biden, “if we provide the resources.”


Call me crazy, but isn't the worst aspect of the problem those who take children and violate them on film ? Apparently the worst aspect is P2P distribution. Huh.. who knew.

Not only will this bill NEVER stop a single child from being abused and violated, but its going to be yet another law put in the books by Democrats that is impossible to enforce !




By elpresidente2075 on 4/17/2008 11:08:21 PM , Rating: 3
The point is trying to find the source. If you find all the people who've downloaded it (despicable practice anyway), eventually you'll be able to find the first person who put it on the internet. You follow it up the chain, and hopefully a CP ring gets busted big time.

At least that's the point. Whether or not it'll actually happen is a different story, but I know they've got some really good programmers in the FBI, CIA, and NSA, along with dozens of other 3-letter departments and agencies.

As this process isn't about taking down individual users, but the sources on a macro level (presumably) there would be a success rate. However, I agree with the sentiment that it will ultimately be futile, simply because it will be enacted by the federal government, one of the least-efficient, least-organized (or perhaps over-organized?), and slowest moving entities I've ever seen.


By ebakke on 4/17/2008 11:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
It seems mighty difficult to go 'up the chain' as you say.


RE: As usual, Democrats miss the big picture.
By Visual on 4/18/2008 6:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
No... it is most likely impossible to find the source this way.
The goal is indeed to catch individual users, or at the very least scare them away. This can significantly decrease the market to such material, and so hopefully eliminate the reason it is being created in the first place.


RE: As usual, Democrats miss the big picture.
By Kenenniah on 4/18/2008 6:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This can significantly decrease the market to such material, and so hopefully eliminate the reason it is being created in the first place.


The market? What you said would make sense if the article was talking about people paying for the data. Since it's talking about P2P there is no monetary incentive for people to post it, therefore I fail to see how it would affect the creators at all. They'd still make money selling it in their usual non P2P undergrounds.


RE: As usual, Democrats miss the big picture.
By Visual on 4/18/2008 7:20:11 AM , Rating: 2
Point.

Hmm... maybe it's to avoid all these people that are now getting it for free to become too interested in it, to the point of starting to pay for it or even ...*shiver*.. produce it themselves?
I still think such a move is an attempt at limiting the demand for such material, free or otherwise, which is a good thing.


By dever on 4/18/2008 1:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's an interesting question though. They should be very careful. Most government problems aimed at helping a particular problem, often make it worse. (Lookup rent ceilings or food price floors.)

If they end up making it more costly to obtain (through higher risks), this will entice producers as prices rise. The "artificially" high prices might actually increase the supply chain, making the worst part of the sickening cycle (the abuse of children) actually more prolific.


By Kenenniah on 4/18/2008 3:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it could go either way. On the one hand, less people might get introduced to it thus lowering demand. On the other hand, if there is less "free" stuff availiable, the people that do want it will be more willing to pay for it.

It's kind of like the pirating of music argument. Some say it helps sell more music because of the people that buy after first hearing pirated songs. Others of course say that pirating causes the exact opposite and lowers sales.

Of course all this is moot, because regardless of which it is, they should still try to prosecute those sharing it in any venue, P2P or otherwise.


RE: As usual, Democrats miss the big picture.
By arazok on 4/18/2008 8:18:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The point is trying to find the source. If you find all the people who've downloaded it (despicable practice anyway), eventually you'll be able to find the first person who put it on the internet. You follow it up the chain, and hopefully a CP ring gets busted big time.


That strategy has worked wonders in the war on drugs. How many billions a year is spent on that?...

I like the goal of this initiative, but it's unachievable, expensive, and sets a dangerous precedent.


RE: As usual, Democrats miss the big picture.
By Polynikes on 4/18/2008 10:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.


By elpresidente2075 on 4/21/2008 1:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
As do I.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the ability of the government that is most effectively wielded is the ability of wasting money. The actual reason this is even being proposed is in a maneuver to gain political support for "fighting for children's rights". Feels to me like an effort to get as much gain for those spearheading the effort with as little output as possible.

It is unfortunate to me that some people are more concerned with gaining power than actually helping people and that they will use those who actually want to help people to their own ends. It is for that reason that I hate politicians of all types from all times.


By plowak on 4/21/2008 2:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
If this goes the way the "War on Drugs" went then we might expect the CIA to get involved in selling child porn to finance the war in Afghanistan - the end justifies the means. After all, %80 of the opium used in this country comes from Afghanistan and the money laundered from the heroin sales is keeping our banks afloat.


RE: As usual, Democrats miss the big picture.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 4:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The point is trying to find the source. If you find all the people who've downloaded it (despicable practice anyway), eventually you'll be able to find the first person who put it on the internet. You follow it up the chain, and hopefully a CP ring gets busted big time.


How ??

Okay three years ago I uploaded an MP3 using Kazaa. Its probably been downloaded by thousands of people across the planet. And then reshared by them to thousands more. Okay, if I tell you the filename tell me how your going to go " up the chain " and prove it came from me in the first place ?


By elpresidente2075 on 4/21/2008 1:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it was feasible, just that it was the point of the idea... Personally I figure they'll be monitoring for new stuff and getting people as they put it out. Had they been looking for people that were putting out the MP3 that you uploaded with that same filename/etc. 3 years ago, it's possible that you could have been busted.

That is, if they do anything about it at all. Politicians are all talk and no action anyway, especially those who live and work in Washington.


By phxfreddy on 4/18/2008 4:49:03 AM , Rating: 4
Yah P2P appears to be the target. Er that and Joe Biden getting some face time. Wonder how that hair transplant correction is going. At one time about '90 it looked like the Doc's had used hair from his arse to repopulate his head.


By cyyc009 on 4/19/2008 8:14:41 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking about impossible to enforce, I wish people would open their eyes as how difficult internet monitoring is to do. Do you know how many people it would take to monitor the P2P community? A LOT. And, on top of that, one would have to identify if those who were downloading the pornographic videos were from the United States or not b/c, let's face it, American jurisdiction only stretches so far. And this is all assuming that anyone would want such a tedious job in the first place (well, then again, I suppose the working class is a little desperate these days...).


By fri2219 on 4/17/2008 8:20:13 PM , Rating: 5
When the Republicans want to erase your civil liberties, they do it in the name of "The War on Commies/Drugs/Terror".

When the Democrats want to erase your civil liberties, they do it in the name of "Protecting Our Children".




By gglenn on 4/18/2008 1:56:59 AM , Rating: 4
Don't forget "Protecting the Planet".


By phxfreddy on 4/18/2008 4:52:27 AM , Rating: 2
And these are at odds...the radical greens must eventually try to eat the children because "there are too many people on Earth".....oops my mistake...."there full phrase is there are too many people on Earth who do not vote democrat".....I guess environmentalism is a hoax after all.


By dever on 4/18/2008 1:22:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sad but true. But at least the federal government was instantiated to protect our rights from outside infringement, so terror, in my humble opinion, seems a little more legitimate than trans-fatty acids.


By Kaleid on 4/20/2008 12:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
I disgree. If you look at statistics then terrorism is a low on the level of threat to the west. The real threat, if there is any, is often far more close to people rather than those who live thousands of miles away.
And since the "war on terrorism" began terrorist acts have increased dramatically. It simply does now work.

It's time people start saying no to all this surveillance BS.
The dems take away one part of liberties and the republicans take another. Is this how they plan to active the Total Information Awareness program? Piece by piece?

1984 was a great warning..and now military analysts have been exposed as secretly working for Pentagon and it has previously been exposed that there are bloggers recruited to spread propaganda.

Just how free are you/we anyway?


By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2008 1:44:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I disgree. If you look at statistics then terrorism is a low on the level of threat to the west. The real threat, if there is any, is often far more close to people rather than those who live thousands of miles away.


Uhh those " low level terrorist " from thousands of miles away were able to strike at the very heart of this nation ! Not just the twin towers. But the Pentagon and, if it wasn't for some heroes, the White House would of been hit too. Oh I know, people like believe it was an isolated incident. That it can't happen again. Thats its no big deal etc etc

quote:
And since the "war on terrorism" began terrorist acts have increased dramatically. It simply does now work.


Pure ignorance. I will not sit here and suffer another fool coming with the " we're making more terrorist ". Wake up. We're in the middle of a Holy war that we didn't start, but we damn well better win. 911 was proof enough that these people are not content with keeping it on their turf. They can and WILL take it to us if we allow them.

There were just as many terrorist attacks under the Clinton White House but nobody knew because it wasn't being focused on by the media. Remember the USS Cole ?? It barely got a mention in the press !

Yes lets say no to surveillance. Lets go back to pre-Patriot Act. Where the CIA and FIB aren't allowed to share information to stop criminals. Where we can't see the bullets coming till they are in our brains. Where we don't allow ourselves to do what we MUST to protect our nation.

1984 was a book written long before current events. While I appreciate and respect the themes of it, you have to understand one thing, that will never happen in this country.


By Kaleid on 4/21/2008 10:29:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uhh those " low level terrorist " from thousands of miles away were able to strike at the very heart of this nation ! Not just the twin towers. But the Pentagon and, if it wasn't for some heroes, the White House would of been hit too. Oh I know, people like believe it was an isolated incident. That it can't happen again. Thats its no big deal etc etc

They did and there was so much information in the US intelligence services that it could've been easily stopped. Even in its later state when the hijacked aircrafts were in the air the airdefence could have responded if they were not busy in the many defence exercises that day. This is something that Osama could not foresee, the typical response time is around 15 minutes, but on 9/11 some of the planes were on in the air over 1.5h despite the very early warnings. According to news reports atleast 10 countries made warnings to the US, some of them were very specific. So how much did US know and why did it fail to respond? I know this may seem like a bit too much of a conspiracy theory but the leaders that are supposedly going to protect USA wrote in their own blueprint (Rebuilding Americas defences) that USA needs another Pearl Harbor so that the PNAC agenda can go in to, well, 'go' status. They needed that attack just as much as they need terrorism now for their plans for the middle-east. Permanent presence, which is hardly a liberation (and if so, then oh how selective).

quote:
Pure ignorance. I will not sit here and suffer another fool coming with the " we're making more terrorist ". Wake up. We're in the middle of a Holy war that we didn't start, but we damn well better win. 911 was proof enough that these people are not content with keeping it on their turf. They can and WILL take it to us if we allow them.


It isen't, it's stating facts. Or are your politicians so damned ignorant that they believe they attacked USA for their freedoms? When Pentagon itself publishes reports (quietly) that 'They Hate Our Policies, Not Our Freedom'. If it worked then why is Israel never safe and so much of the world not attacked? And at most these are very small groups like AQ.
If it worked then the terrorism numbers would be down but its up atleast sevenfold. But if that is not enough there are programs like P2OG to make sure that there will be no end to it. Like AIE imperialist neocon Michael Ledeen said stability is not an American mission. It's an old tactic... Destabilize and then conquer. There will never be an end to all this because your leaders do not wish it to end.

quote:
There were just as many terrorist attacks under the Clinton White House but nobody knew because it wasn't being focused on by the media. Remember the USS Cole ?? It barely got a mention in the press !


Yes there is and those are vile acts, there is no reason to support it. But I would also like to add that there is also government terrorism such as the 1953 Iranian coup. Selfgovernence is not allowed to those who have oil. Through that coup USA still suffers, it lead to the direct blowback of the 1979 revolution.

quote:
Yes lets say no to surveillance. Lets go back to pre-Patriot Act. Where the CIA and FIB aren't allowed to share information to stop criminals. Where we can't see the bullets coming till they are in our brains. Where we don't allow ourselves to do what we MUST to protect our nation.

1984 was a book written long before current events. While I appreciate and respect the themes of it, you have to understand one thing, that will never happen in this country.


Surveillance is ok, but is not supposed to go the levels where it is now. I though the founding fathers had some clear directions. Surveillance should be legal and not everything should be covered. Now it treats everyone as a possible criminal. Fighting terrorism is intelligence and police work and not for the military. Militaries are for occupations, for imperialism. Certainly fundamentalist muslims are to blame for what has happened, but USA playes a larger role to atleast try to end it all, these military permanent occupations are exactly what AQ needs to inflame muslim hatred against the tyranny of "the great satan" or whatever the hell they call USA. Even PNAC madman Wolfowitz regocnized that US troops in "holy land" Saudiarabia served as a justification for AQ.

Here's a better word for your defence: offence. And now there might be an arms race with Russia. See how well it works? "Full spectrum dominance" is pure insanity.


By Kaleid on 4/21/2008 10:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
Forgot to add one thing. Imperialism is something you cannot afford, just look at the massive national debt level. Better end it now or its belly up for ya.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/22/2008 11:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
Kaleid you are so far off base it's not funny.

First off the USA is not an Imperialistic (not even remotely close). If we were we would not have debt level. Imperialistic countries were and still may have some of it left in them, England. When you are an imperialistic country you TAX the other countries or colonies under your control so that you gain wealth from ruling over them. Our national debt comes from thing like providing money to the Federal Reserve so that they can give money to your local banks which then lets the citizen buy homes with a loan. It is also created by giving away money to third world countries to help the people in that place create a “better” life, and many other things like this create the national debt...not from Imperialistic actions. So national debt is not a bad thing. Currently we are a bit out of control because former President Clinton made it very, very easy for the average person to get a mortgage (which is not bad idea or intent), however to do this it meant people could get a loan based on 50 or 60% of their income verse 30%. So for every $100. you earn you can use $50 or $60 dollars towards a mortgage payment verse the $30 of 15 years ago. Well after you add in 35% tax that leaves you 5 to 15% of your income to live on. Not much and if you have a decrease in pay or lose a job....bye bye home, hello more non-paid back national debt, hello lower valued US dollar, and in a country the imports as much as we do – that is very bad because now everything goes up in price.
Second, there are far less terrorist today then 2, 3, 7, 10 years ago... not seven fold more. It's very easy to prove this. To be a martyr and blow your self up killing as many innocent people is a great honor for any extreme Islamic MALE. Not agreeing with or disagreeing with this, it's just what is, why else would you blow yourself up? Islamic culture and little to no respect for their females (again not agreeing or disagreeing with, just what is). With this is mind they would never allow a females to have such a “glories death” and be so highly honored by their god unless they were running out of males that are willing to become a martyr. Yes, they have been using females as martyrs in the past year.
Ask yourself this question, When is the last time you heard about a airline plane being Hi-jacked – in the USA has not happened since 9/11, before once every 1 or 2 years (95% an Islamic was behind the scene)
For 2,000 years or more these countries not know true peace, this is not new since they discovered oil there or anything else. If you see interview with Iraqi citizens in the zones that have gone or called secured. The one common thing that they will say is that they love the stability that the USA has brought. First time in years, over ten years in many place that they have opened up the schools. First time in 20 to 30 years that girls get to go to school, they are picking their leaders, they are seeing the American soldiers and allies clean up the town, painting, fixing things so that the people can go back to work, open businesses...helping the citizens in any way they can. Something that the previous government never did. Do they want us to stay forever? No who would, but they are very grateful for their new lives they currently have.
Stop listening to the media and go talk to a soldier (several of them), never believe just one person.


By Kaleid on 4/23/2008 7:58:15 PM , Rating: 2
There simply too much text there to reply to, so I hope you excuse me for being somewhat brief.
But yes, USA is currently the only superpower in the world and it seeks to protects its interests and one of the major ones is to remain the only superpower in the world. That is why it needs to secure energy sources to itself.

Oil is one of great importance, all you need to look for is what Cheney has said throughout the years (he is a PNAC imperialist, these folks accused Clinton of not being imperialist enough. After the fall of the Sovietunion the first ideas formed. Largely criticized but now the answer. Pre-emption is the word to protect itself but dominance is the goal), what he did at the energy task force (see judicialwatch for source, maps of Iraqi oilfield), the neocons letter and criticism to Clinton atleast back to 1998 when they said a vast amount of oil could fall into the wrong hands, the Iraqi oil law, what was protected initially after the soldiers marched in (important oil places were of more importance then places that supposedly had those WMDs. See the documentary called "The oil factor" for introductionary information) and last but not least the PNAC own blueprints which are available for all too read and the media to report on (but they of course won't do it).

As for terrorism, of course there is more terrorism. You need to understand what motives people. I guarantee that once country X bombs country Y, the latter will have a population that more increasingly will become nationalistic and will want to punish (I'm certainly not agreeing with the method) those who occupy their country. Americans would do the same if (in theory) Canadians occupied and bombed their homecountry. Second, if you're a smallish terrorist organization such as AQ you need to have something to say to motivate people. In Iraq they can simply say "look the Americans are here and look what is happening to muslims. Join us and fight them" or something similar. They of course die and lose members but reqruiting does not seem very difficult now does it?

It's an easy sell for many and so easy infact that a majority of the population of Iraq are OK with attacks on foreign troops. There are several studies on this, here one back from 2005:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

Second, the numbers are way up, and constantly showed by studies, here's a recent one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
And the terrorists are not only males, there have been cases of women blowing themselves up. In an extremely cynical way I joked once that this is what feminism is in oppressed muslim land looks like.

You can google for plenty of more facts on how terrorism is up. My argument is that there is not really a wish to defeat terrorism atleast not for quite some time, since it is very useful to spread the wars, like to Iran...a sort of Operation Ajax II. The neocons call for a more PERMANENT presence in the middle-east. They do now build those military bases and superlarge embassy for nothing.

It is all too often we don't see our own crimes. My own country, which is in Europe officially does not support selling military equipment and weapons to countries that are at war, there are laws against this but we do it silently anyway. Simply too much money in the military industrial complex. Luckily it has not swollen to such huge size as in USA and hopefully it cannot.

Btw, I have to add that Clinton signed back in 1998 an Iraqi liberation act. So to me the dems are more of the same.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/21/2008 7:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
First off Kaleid I salute your reply. Very insightful, mature, and respectful. We need more of that on here.

quote:
They did and there was so much information in the US intelligence services that it could've been easily stopped. Even in its later state when the hijacked aircrafts were in the air the airdefence could have responded if they were not busy in the many defence exercises that day. This is something that Osama could not foresee, the typical response time is around 15 minutes, but on 9/11 some of the planes were on in the air over 1.5h despite the very early warnings. According to news reports atleast 10 countries made warnings to the US, some of them were very specific. So how much did US know and why did it fail to respond? I know this may seem like a bit too much of a conspiracy theory but the leaders that are supposedly going to protect USA wrote in their own blueprint (Rebuilding Americas defences) that USA needs another Pearl Harbor so that the PNAC agenda can go in to, well, 'go' status. They needed that attack just as much as they need terrorism now for their plans for the middle-east. Permanent presence, which is hardly a liberation (and if so, then oh how selective).


I refuse to accept this theory. And I honestly can't believe anyone would be so in love with conspiracy theories that they believe we would knowingly allow 911 to take place. Besides that, the Democrats on the warpath formed the " 911 investigation " shortly after with the express purpose to blame George Bush and the admministration for " allowing " 911 to happen so they could crucify him. No smoking gun was found. There was no blame to go around. 911 was a combination of us being too complacent, cutbacks in our intelligence services made by Bill Clinton, and typical government red tape. Also, lets be honest, the terrorist carried out and executed their plan perfectly.

quote:
Surveillance is ok, but is not supposed to go the levels where it is now. I though the founding fathers had some clear directions.


The Founding Fathers also never intended the Constitution and the civil rights to be, in the words of Benjamin Franklin himself, a " suicide pact ". Liberties, in some situations, can go too far if they prevent you from doing what must be done to preserve the democracy. If there is no country left for a government to defend said liberties, then whats the point ?

When Abraham Lincoln was in office the country tried to tear itself apart. People argued that under the constitution the president lacked the power to violate the laws. No one was above the law they said, even if to obey the laws meant allowing the republic to fall. Lincoln had a different opinion. He said the duly elected lawful government had the inherent power to do whatever was neccessary to save itself. He jailed people without charges or trials, suspended habeus corpus to judges couldn't release them. He shut down newspapers, blockaded American ports.
He was called a dictator, " King Lincoln ". Much like George Bush is called. And yet, he saved this country. He saved the Constitutional government. He forced the American people to fight in the Capitol Building, not the battlefield.

quote:
Now it treats everyone as a possible criminal. Fighting terrorism is intelligence and police work and not for the military.


Thats the exact ideology that lead to 911 ! Just because these people don't carry a flag and wear a uniform does not mean they aren't soldiers. We ARE in a war and that IS what the military is for sir.

Remember the first Trade Center bombing ? We apprehended the two who did it. And treated it like a police matter. They were arrested, tried, and then jailed. And that was that. They were AQ !!! They were part of a much larger effort to , at the very least, cause great harm to the people of this nation. And it was handled as a " police " matter !! Insanity.

quote:
Or are your politicians so damned ignorant that they believe they attacked USA for their freedoms?


It doesn't matter why they did it anymore. I'm sick and tired of hearing about " why " they do it, as if there is some rational reason we just don't understand. Its this simple : These people are living like its still the stone ages, and are driven by an insane religious and extremist ideology perpetrated by cowards who have perverted a once peaceful religion. In short, they are crazy.

Figuring out why doesn't bring people back from the dead. Or restore buildings. Or erase atrocities. Its called a sovereign nation for a reason. We must defend these borders !

Can you, or anyone, promise us that if we turtle into our country and remove ourselves from every " holy land " that we will be safe ? That we will never be attacked again ? Whats done is done, there is no going back.

As a conservative, I'm against Surveillance in principle. But I recognize the need for it under certain conditions. When its prudent and effective. But like I said before, the type of surveillance this article is suggesting is not only not effective, but just a bad idea that won't actually fix the problem.


By Kaleid on 4/23/2008 8:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off Kaleid I salute your reply. Very insightful, mature, and respectful. We need more of that on here.


Thank you. The same to you

quote:
I refuse to accept this theory. And I honestly can't believe anyone would be so in love with conspiracy theories that they believe we would knowingly allow 911 to take place. Besides that, the Democrats on the warpath formed the " 911 investigation " shortly after with the express purpose to blame George Bush and the admministration for " allowing " 911 to happen so they could crucify him. No smoking gun was found. There was no blame to go around. 911 was a combination of us being too complacent, cutbacks in our intelligence services made by Bill Clinton, and typical government red tape. Also, lets be honest, the terrorist carried out and executed their plan perfectly.


If they state in their own documents that USA needs a new Pearl Harbor to go on with the PNAC plan and have done this constantly for quite some time then it is atleast not wrong to point out that people inside USA not only benefitted from the attacks but also needed it: (read this link for a brief timeline. This is not purely a neocon viewpoint)
http://korturl.se/gehs

It took extremely long time before the 9/11 commission was started and Kissinger had to step down since he had conflicts of interest. Zelikow entered, a man who is an expert in public myths and wrote a book with Condi Rice so he certainly had a conflict of interest and should not have headed the commission. In every way there was an effort to stop the 9/11 investigation which to me is downright criminal. You can see also see this how much funding they received and how much time they were allowed to have for it.
And on top of that, it was made clear early that no fingers will be pointed and among other things that are written in that final report that the funding of the attack is not of importance (which it of course is). So to me the 9/11 report is a complete whitewash, and the alarm bells were ringing loud and clear for months before the attacks yet nothing was done.

As for the military size. Sure, it was cut back somewhat by Clinton but also by Bush 41, the cold war was after all over. But the intelligence was there to stop the attacks, without a doubt. For this I refer you to read over at cooperativeresearch.org. Read for instance about the many many foreign warnings and the military exercises that trained similar and almost exactly the same treats.
So 9/11 certainly was not something that no-one could not foresee. There's an incredible amount of information out there to read without having to resort to any theories what so ever as to what really happened.

Oh yeah, btw, when Clinton used the military there was a lot of "wag of dog" and "feel good use of military" of that effect. Like I state in my post above though, the two parties of USA both are pretty much married to the military industrial complex. Neither will dismount the military to a more reasonable size.

quote:
The Founding Fathers also never intended the Constitution and the civil rights to be, in the words of Benjamin Franklin himself, a " suicide pact ". Liberties, in some situations, can go too far if they prevent you from doing what must be done to preserve the democracy. If there is no country left for a government to defend said liberties, then whats the point ?

When Abraham Lincoln was in office the country tried to tear itself apart. People argued that under the constitution the president lacked the power to violate the laws. No one was above the law they said, even if to obey the laws meant allowing the republic to fall. Lincoln had a different opinion. He said the duly elected lawful government had the inherent power to do whatever was neccessary to save itself. He jailed people without charges or trials, suspended habeus corpus to judges couldn't release them. He shut down newspapers, blockaded American ports.
He was called a dictator, " King Lincoln ". Much like George Bush is called. And yet, he saved this country. He saved the Constitutional government. He forced the American people to fight in the Capitol Building, not the battlefield.


Here we pretty much agree. I'm aware of cases where there have been temporary limitations to liberties but in these days once they are lost they seldom do come back. Conservatives are not really small governemnt conservatives and liberals are not classic liberals. There are a few things that I find more scary than an overly paranoid government which uses things like the Patriot Act not to fight against terrorism but against other crimes. On these things the government has constantly lied to the people. Just like the governemnt fully aware lied to the American people and the world about the threat of Saddams supposed WMDs (@ office of special plans the intelligence was fixed to suit the need).

I also argue that there is in noway that a threat from some muslim guerilla fighters is a real danger against Americans. It is not civilwar nor is it a world war.


By Kaleid on 4/23/2008 8:47:29 PM , Rating: 2
Part 2 :)

quote:
Thats the exact ideology that lead to 911 ! Just because these people don't carry a flag and wear a uniform does not mean they aren't soldiers. We ARE in a war and that IS what the military is for sir.

Remember the first Trade Center bombing ? We apprehended the two who did it. And treated it like a police matter. They were arrested, tried, and then jailed. And that was that. They were AQ !!! They were part of a much larger effort to , at the very least, cause great harm to the people of this nation. And it was handled as a " police " matter !! Insanity.


Not true. Poor interventionism in the middle-east lead to 9/11 (and the wanting and needing of it to happen, which is very true)
Bombing muslims in Iraq and its infrastructure is what motives these people. Sanctions which starve thousands.
Sure it doesn't help that they are fundamentalists either of course, but there was no major threat to USA coming from the middle-east other than AQ. Now Iraq is a hellhole, and of all terrorists acts in Iraq only max 2-3% are because of AQ. The rest are Iraqis that USA supposedly came to save. And no, it is not foreign troops allthough there of course will come some to join the fight against someone. This happens in almost any place.

The 1953 UK/US coup lead to the Iranian revolution. The all too much support for Israel is also a great motivation as showed by a 2004 study quietly released by Pentagon
'They hate our policies, not our freedom'
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the Pentagon report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'
http://korturl.se/sroe
http://korturl.se/hyfc

quote:
It doesn't matter why they did it anymore. I'm sick and tired of hearing about " why " they do it, as if there is some rational reason we just don't understand. Its this simple : These people are living like its still the stone ages, and are driven by an insane religious and extremist ideology perpetrated by cowards who have perverted a once peaceful religion. In short, they are crazy.

Figuring out why doesn't bring people back from the dead. Or restore buildings. Or erase atrocities. Its called a sovereign nation for a reason. We must defend these borders !


It certainly does matter why they do it, if we wish to see an end to it. To quote Deus Ex "You can't fight ideas with bullets".
Mcnamara spoke about this is the Fog of War and Sun Tzu of course understood the importance of knowing the enemy. Do we wish this to go on for ever? I certainly cannot say that USA will forever be safe from attacks were they to leave, but just because those "holy lands" have oil does not mean that we in the west have the right do as we wish with their leaders and their nations. Why should they not be allowed to do it their own way? Muslims needs it own liberators, those who wish to bring it all closer to democratic regimes which has for instance needed religious freedom. You need this as their zeitgest, their moment of change. You need mass support from the population.

Bombs might do the trick, for a while. But as a long term solution it is extremely poor.


UUID
By jimpaka on 4/17/2008 6:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
MAC address possibly




RE: UUID
By WTurner on 4/17/2008 6:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
So what happens when the cops show up to your door to arrest you and no network devices with the perp MAC address exists at your residence?


RE: UUID
By drinkmorejava on 4/17/2008 6:19:03 PM , Rating: 1
Generally, MACs are local only, unless the ISPs are are handing out modem MACs and letting them reference the IP database whenever they choose.


RE: UUID
By JAB on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: UUID
By wien on 4/17/2008 6:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Um, changing the MAC address is amazingly simple. My router even has a web-based GUI enabling me to use any MAC address I want. Even if you could find out someone's MAC address from across the internet (you can't), how would you be able to tell if it's the real one or just someone faking it?


RE: UUID
By TomCorelis (blog) on 4/17/2008 6:45:22 PM , Rating: 2
Your DNS address is no more unique than your IP address, and just about as persistent -- one usually points to the other. I've spent a lot of time checking out traffic with Ethereal/Wireshark (Ethereal was a much cooler name, by the way), and I can't remember seeing anything terribly interesting (or identifying) in the TCP/IP headers. Never bothered reading P2P traffic though...


RE: UUID
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2008 7:27:33 AM , Rating: 3
Cable modem's have MAC address too.


RE: UUID
By xxsk8er101xx on 4/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: UUID
By murphyslabrat on 4/17/2008 6:43:41 PM , Rating: 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing
That aughta give you some basic information, but other than that, just Google "routing"

You are completely wrong.


RE: UUID
By fri2219 on 4/17/2008 8:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
ARP is not propagated beyond a network segment.


RE: UUID
By Yames on 4/18/2008 3:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
It could be the MAC addy, if the P2P software is putting this into the data. But then again the only way to get a unique identifier, other than the IP and time, would be for this identifier to be carried in the datagram. This means that this would work only on certain networks and/or clients, and could probably be easily circumvented.


Thank JESUS
By SeeManRun on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank JESUS
By xxsk8er101xx on 4/17/2008 6:20:42 PM , Rating: 1
ya because the economy, weak dollar, morgage crisis, isn't important. Let's focus on a bill that will not work and can not work.

You cannot monitor p2p - it's impossible. Listen to me from a tech guru - impossible!

you cannot monitor computer to computer connections because there is nothing in between to monitor. Unless you violate the first amendment and legislate warrantless wiretaps.

oooo i thought dems were against that?

can we focus on a real issue for once in this god forsaken country?


RE: Thank JESUS
By MrWonka on 4/22/2008 8:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
You really need to stop mumbling; cause’ I can’t understand a word you’re saying.


RE: Thank JESUS
By ikkeman on 4/17/2008 6:33:05 PM , Rating: 1
and the little fact that you loose your god given right to privacy doesn't matter offcourse.

I thought poeple were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty...
downloading childpron cannot be illegal - unless it can be proven that you were fully aware of what you're downloading. proving intent is somewhat tricky.
just logging all the activity of someone who was ever associated to anything illegal seems like a sure way to get everyone in jail.
yes, they start with childporn - just about the most vile crime possible. Lets have a show of hands who thinks Big Brother won't use this for whatever he feels like.

Logging all internet activity is like putting camera's on every streetcorner and putting a shadow on all poeple that leave their house. They might have something illegal in mind, like running a red light, or driving 56 in a 55 zone.

Tracking who downloads certain known illegal files (either in content or in copyright) does sound promising. If you found proof someone does something illegal, the law enforcers can get a warrant to search. Their house, their computer - doesn't matter. If a judge??? signs this warrant, the police (fbi-cia-nsa geeksquad?) can enter search for the illegal content.

If this sounds like to much trouble - apparently we don't think the crime is worth the effort (small consumer of simple copyright stuff). This gives normal citizens protection from the overzealous extrimists (RIAA), while still allowing for the prosecution of serious offenders (100's of illegal movies/music, child porn, sosec numbers)


RE: Thank JESUS
By dhalilahma on 4/17/2008 7:12:57 PM , Rating: 1
I dont mind little kiddies getting raped, as long as the government never finds out I downloaded movies and apps from the piratebay etc Im happy?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!


RE: Thank JESUS
By BucDan on 4/17/2008 7:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
i wouldnt be suprised that since you said that about kids in child porn, that one of your siblings or anyone that is close to you ends up in one. Who doesnt do piracy stuff these days; it just isnt right to just say that about kids, maybe because you are an offender yourself


RE: Thank JESUS
By LumbergTech on 4/17/2008 7:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
im guessing that that was sarcastic

although it really proves nothing..

the whole idea is faulty because its not like you can really rely on "file names" anyway...give me a break..they will just start using random file names etc


RE: Thank JESUS
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 7:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Not really. I mean.. exactly what keywords are they looking for ? There must be a million 100% legal pornos with the word " teen " or " young " etc etc in the title.


RE: Thank JESUS
By dhalilahma on 4/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank JESUS
By mrteddyears on 4/18/2008 4:15:59 AM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is in the UK we have camera's everywhere and automated tax collectors running them. The UK government are pushing for a DNA database of all people no matter who you are or what you have done WHY ?.

The latest thing this UK Government are trailing are is an average speed check system. Doesn’t sound bad does it to issue fines if you speed in cities but the real reason this is being tried is to follow a complete journey.

We have in the UK fully operational facial recognition systems in London and all airports in the UK. We have shown how we tracked the 7/7 bombers from one end of the UK to the other. Not a bad thing you say but how many bombs did the IRA plant in comparison to Muslim extremists in the UK and how many innocents where killed. Did the then conservative government curtail civil liberties NO they worked with the people to bring down these vile people. In the same way the UK works with the USA.

USA this is a wake up call you are walking into a George Orwell 1984 nightmare just like the UK. The advantage you have is the sheer size of the USA and the massive cost these systems take.

As far as paedophiles go more feet on the street is what’s needed not monitoring of the actions of the people and the great advantage the USA has over the UK is you still kill people via a number of means who deserve it.

Some don’t but this a tech forum and not a place for moral debate

/get down off soap box/


RE: Thank JESUS
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 4:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
USA this is a wake up call you are walking into a George Orwell 1984 nightmare just like the UK. The advantage you have is the sheer size of the USA and the massive cost these systems take.


Tell me about it. I get more worried every year. Its like all the true conservatives lost their backbone and now there is nothing left to stop these people. Our government was BUILT on checks and balances. Ideas like these are supposed to get shot down. Not funded !


RE: Thank JESUS
By zombiexl on 4/18/2008 12:45:33 PM , Rating: 1
I hope you have a job so you are being raped for the tax dollars that will get wasted on this. It's a battle that wont be won. If they could stop it, they would have already done so. This is just a way to hide some other spedning and expand the government even further.


I have a better plan!
By nvalhalla on 4/17/2008 7:11:26 PM , Rating: 4
Most child pornography is recorded in peoples homes. I propose a law that allows the FBI to monitor peoples homes to watch out for child pornography BEFORE it makes it to the net. You know, for the children...




RE: I have a better plan!
By HighWing on 4/17/2008 11:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
*laughs* hell why stop there, we should be monitoring homes for Terrorist activity as well. Oh yeah and while we're at it don't forget about the war on drugs. Cause we all know every drug dealer has a meth lab in their basement.

Scary thing about my statement is that there really are people in this world who believe that this a valid reason for monitoring everyone's home.


RE: I have a better plan!
By NaughtyGeek on 4/18/2008 11:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear right?


RE: I have a better plan!
By zombiexl on 4/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: I have a better plan!
By Oregonian2 on 4/18/2008 6:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
Funny... that's EXACTLY what my mother says if I ask her whether or not it would bother her if the government wanted to put cameras throughout her house for security purposes. Freaks me out (as it probably would the folk monitoring her, she's seventy something).


RE: I have a better plan!
By zombiexl on 4/22/2008 1:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
Geez was it national no sense of humor day or something?


By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2008 7:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't you build and staff a database that downloads child porn and uses the new facial recognition anti terrorism system to identify the children ? Eventually leading to the arrest of whoever forced them to make the video.

Remember in Washintonian language that " one billion " really means 8.5 billion.

Am I crazy or does this make too much sense ?




By Alexstarfire on 4/17/2008 11:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
It would if the stuff the government made actually worked. Face recognition???? Yea, I'm sure that's 100% accurate.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 4:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would if the stuff the government made actually worked. Face recognition???? Yea, I'm sure that's 100% accurate.


Its not 100% accurate. But I believe, due to my mistrust of government, that it is more accurate than they claim.

Would you rather something that not 100% accurate, or Bidens plan thats 100% impossible ?


By bodar on 4/17/2008 11:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
So how do you plan to get the identities and faces of every minor in the country -- assuming we aren't talking about those who are "trafficked" from other countries -- to put in the database? And to update it as they age? Facial recognition, like fingerprint recognition, needs a record to compare against. Even fingerprinting your kids is only recommended, not mandatory, to help if he/she is lost/kidnapped.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2008 4:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So how do you plan to get the identities and faces of every minor in the country -- assuming we aren't talking about those who are "trafficked" from other countries -- to put in the database? And to update it as they age? Facial recognition, like fingerprint recognition, needs a record to compare against. Even fingerprinting your kids is only recommended, not mandatory, to help if he/she is lost/kidnapped.


There are dozens of ways. With billions of dollars and a whole building full of agents are you telling me getting a database of children's identities and a mugshot is that hard ? Hell if you have to database preschool and up yearbooks and class photos.

Somewhere in this country is a building that records every single cell phone call, telephone call, and international call EVER made every single day. I mean, really, this isn't that hard.

I know one thing. If even ONE child on a longshot is liberated from this horror, that will be one more child than Biddens stupid idea will ever save.


More Internet ignorance from the government
By Yawgm0th on 4/17/2008 8:40:09 PM , Rating: 3
I may not be involved in the trade of child pornography, but I would imagine that the majority of those involved in the exchange of illegal content over the Internet have enough sense not to use P2P file-sharing networks. P2P is inherently insecure. You can do some fun stuff with proxies or TOR, but ultimately P2P by design does not provide a safe or private way to transfer illegal material over the Internet.

I would presume that the most prolific of child pornography providers and downloaders are contacting each other more privately -- likely through IRC and USENET, and also providing content more privately -- and transferring files more securely, through encrypted FTP or USENET traffic.

On the same note, the notion that "looking at the filenames" is really going to accomplish much is even more ridiculous.

Perhaps I'm ignorant on this, and there is a substantial amount of child pornography going over P2P networks, but even then, a grandiose, expensive P2P monitoring system is hardly a solution to anything. The majority of child porn will still find a way across our series of tubes, P2P monitoring or not. Such a solution would ultimately end up being used for other purposes, while Americans are duped into going along with it. Child pornography incites as much fear and anger as terrorism, so in the name of stopping it politicians will easily persuade people to go along with a system like this, no matter how expensive or ineffective it proves.

Either way, I apologize for breaking the first rules of USENET and changing filenames.




RE: More Internet ignorance from the government
By mindless1 on 4/18/2008 7:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
Since the investigators are actively accumulating data, they have fairly clearly proved you wrong already. Nobody ever said any particular operation had a hope of being a 100%, comprehensive way of catching everyone.

Yes it is fairly clear you could catch some of the people by looking at file names. Do tell us the last time you downloaded a game demo, rerun of a TV show or whatever, that was named "daddy rapes 4 year old.wmv".

The thing about catching criminals is taking it one step at a time. Monitoring P2P doesn't mean dropping all other forms of investigation nor refraining from monitoring any other distribution avenues.


RE: More Internet ignorance from the government
By zombiexl on 4/18/2008 12:48:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
daddy rapes 4 year old

wasnt that a sitcom back in the 70's?


By zombiexl on 4/22/2008 1:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
Man, I cant get a break. Must have been a day of rating me down. I thought it was funny, guess people dont find things like this funny unless Matt and Trey put is in south park.


Indeed
By dflynchimp on 4/17/2008 5:55:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
the software works similar to anti-P2P measures used by Hollywood enforcers


and we all know how effective *that* is




RE: Indeed
By Owls on 4/17/2008 6:26:56 PM , Rating: 1
By CuiBono on 4/17/2008 11:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
People, - whenever Government Inc. talks of breaking your rights for a "good reason" you've GOT TO PAY ATTENTION! Not the slimy wording but what lies underneath. You should know better that it's absolutely not about child porn, not at all. It's about them trying to get everywhere and anywhere they please, BUT to sell that to you they need a "good reason", a hook for you to swallow. They ALWAYS do that - wrapping their invasive programs of all sorts into nice, easy-to-swallow packaging. For the lack of real attention and understanding people swallow the propaganda and let themselves fooled by these smart marketing tricks. Have anyone here studied advertising and marketing? I did. I know how simple it is to fool people. So, let's talk about the Government Inc. really wants from you. They want you to support.. no, wrong word.. they want you to demand the very things you'd be against if you'd knew the real purpose of these deceptive programs and tactics. "No child left behind", "No child/kiddie porn in p2p", "no.. whatever" - there's plenty of this crap to go around. Just check what those programs really achieve. That's your reality check. Very soon you ain't going to have any democracy left - just one superstate w/immense superpowers to invade and suppress anything it deems as a danger to itself. Don't be a dumbass and support building of your own cage. Don't be naive ..or too patriotic to see what's coming.




By FeralMisanthrope on 4/18/2008 10:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Investigators have recorded almost 1.3 million of the unique serial numbers thus far...

quote:
Biden is pushing the “Combating Child Exploitation Act,” which would authorize over $1 billion , spent over the next eight years, to hire an additional 250 agents for the child pornography unit and increase child pornography enforcement worldwide.

Sounds to me like another giant hand-out to the prison industry, akin to the war on drugs. Either that, or each one of these agents is costing the government $500k/year.


Say what?
By jhb116 on 4/17/2008 10:18:07 PM , Rating: 3
So let me get this straight - a major player in the same party that accuses Bush of eroding US civil liberties wants to "monitor" all P2P traffic. Am I the only one that sees the irony?




$1 Billion dollars?
By oralpain on 4/17/2008 10:22:57 PM , Rating: 1
What a massive waste of money.




RE: $1 Billion dollars?
By Omega215D on 4/18/2008 3:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
Even if you say it while holding your pinky to your mouth?


Do something useful...
By jpeyton on 4/17/2008 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
...instead of inventing new 'urgent' issues that require invasive government monitoring and spending billions in taxpayer money.

Thanks,
Your Constituents




hmmmmm.....
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 4/17/2008 6:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm very much against child porn. However, this process worries me. How many times do you surf the web for just about any subject and bing up pops porn right in front of you, and now I've had movies (playing) pop up in front of me and I did not ask for it and now it's down loading to my PC (IP). I think for this to have any real teeth you first need to get rid of spamming or Kidnapping as I like to say... When I click to go to one subject/website and I'm brought to a whole different subject/website and it's not where I want to be; now if it's illegal should it be my fault? When I search for Power screw drivers, I do not expect to see a video of a guy getting blasted in the face by a vodka orange juice mix coming out of a girls bottom.
Danger ICE is all I'm saying....




By chick0n on 4/17/2008 7:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
Prime example.

They dont know crap about technology. This is not going to be possible.

Maybe they should spend more money in education or social services to help people from watching child p0rn ?




Just another excuse
By Shark Tek on 4/18/2008 8:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
Another excuse to rape our privacy.

I bet you that porn isn't the only thing that they will be looking.

What about videos, softs, music, etc.

I wonder how easy they can track a point to point encrypted transfer.




By steven975 on 4/18/2008 8:23:05 AM , Rating: 2
This "unique serial number" is the MAC address...lets not kid ourselves.

If MAC and IP is all they need to ID you, the offenders will just use open Wifi with spoofed MACs. Who goes down when they log the IP address...why the clueless grandma of course!




Let's all not vote for him.
By VIAN on 4/18/2008 9:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
Remember Joe Biden.




Agent
By joker380 on 4/18/2008 9:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
I say call Nicholas Cage to do the job. Man he did great job in 8MM .