Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/13/09
It's so obvious that it's ridiculous that it's taken this long.
... and yes, I already have the Firefox plugins. But I'd prefer a built-in solution. #gizmodoremainders
11/12/09
Granted, that's all based on my personal use, but I would wager the majority of YouTube's user base that enthuses about high definition video wouldn't choose YouTube for their 1080p wants. #gizmodoremainders
11/13/09
11/13/09
@Kaiser-Machead: Uhh, I hate to ask, but which one would that be? #gizmodoremainders
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
There are countless windows programs to download youtube videos, free FLV player (i think) and atubecatcher #gizmodoremainders
11/12/09
For example.. A local station where I live cuts off it's online broadcast when it runs live KU football & basketball games (which is the only time I would want to listen). They cut the online broadcast because KU wants anyone listening online to be paying for the broadcast through another service they have.
Also you could use it for easy rebroadcasting of a station online... Take what you pick up over the air and broadcast it online. There might be some legal problems there. But it would be a super low budget and easy way for a small station to get their broadcast online. #gizmodoremainders
11/12/09
but thats why theres [www.vimeo.com] #gizmodoremainders
11/12/09
11/13/09
vimeo never does
atleast for me #gizmodoremainders
11/13/09
11/10/09
This case is a very solid reason why that makes sense. Either pony up for exhaustive testing to be sure the person willingly looks for and store illegal porn, or don't make it a criminal charge in the first place. #virus
11/10/09
11/10/09
First, there has never been such a solid link established between people who view child porn and those who molest children as you describe. If we're going to go down that path, then we might as well arrest any random drunkard on the street out of the fear he might get in a car, or arrest anyone that expresses a nonprofessional interest in computer security out the fear he might attempt to maliciously hack computers.
Second, if this article is accurate (and even if it's not quite, you can bet it will be down the line), then innocent people who unknowingly had child porn placed on their computers do indeed get tossed in jail. I don't know about you, but I'd rather let a child pornographer walk if it means an innocent man would also be left well alone. Justice that's so carefree as to deal punishment to innocent people is extremely shallow justice.
Third, as much as it pains me to say it, banning child porn attacks the rights granted by the First Amendment. Again, if we ban certain media and not others for whatever reason, we're edging towards a slippery slope where no media is safe from legislation to ban or restrict it. It's why hateful groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis should be allowed to voice their hate, and why people with a stash of child porn should not be prosecuted.
11/10/09
For the most part, though, I agree. If nothing else because criminalizing the existence of child pornography on a computer is treading heavily on the "guilty until proven innocent" side of justice. For starters, it assumes that because it exists on your computer that you're the one who put it there, and that you've viewed it. You can reasonably make this assumption about some things, but as this article points out, it's not universal.
Additionally, the only reason viewing child pornography would be criminalized (aside from being gross), as burning said, is that one would assume that person would also be a pedophile. Again, not necessarily the case.
The real crimes, the ones with real victims, are the people who either make the CP or actually molest children. I don't think that viewing CP is ok. Frankly, I think it's sick. However, criminalizing the viewing of it is too full of possibilities for wrongful accusation, and moreover fails to solve the real problems. #virus
11/10/09
Look, I fully agree it's a sick thing. I don't defend its creation in the slightest, and I do agree that those who do make it are to be charged with child abuse.
However, I stand by my argument that attacking those who view it violates the First Amendment. It's more than just speech.
As for slander and libel, defamation is a very vague thing, and laws to prevent it can be very easily abused. If I'm not mistaken, it's usually a civil issue anyway, is it not? #virus
11/11/09
11/11/09
That's a bad path to go down. It's like saying that because I play GTA I'm almost certainly going to steal a car at some point. Just remember that while media can influence it doesn't dictate your actions. #virus
11/11/09
I mean, I look at porn (not CP) all the time. Does this mean I'm going to get laid? Does it imply that I'll go out in the back alley and rape someone?
No. #virus
11/11/09
Exactly. Whatever my personal opinion on CP may be I think it's very dangerous to draw a conclusion that the intake of media will have a definite impact on the actions we take as people. If you start applying this conclusion, even for only specific forms of media (like CP), it could lead to dangerous repercussions outside of the intended scope. #virus
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/12/09
Not quite true. I'm not trying to defend this in any way but it's only legal consent that's not possible. For the sake of argument a 17 year old has sex with his 15 year old girlfriend. That's legally considered rape even if his girlfriend consented to it because she is below the legal age of consent. Not everything is quite so clear cut and black and white. While rape does happen in a lot of cases there are situations where it's not so simple as someone forcing themselves on a young person. There are plenty of cases where schoolgirls have run off with their teachers for instance. #virus
11/12/09
11/12/09
I rarely get this caught up in an internet debate, but I have to admit I was quite alarmed by what I initially took to be some posters' points on this topic (not yours necessarily).
Since I'm writing this dissertation here, I might as well address the first amendment issues again. I'm not entirely sure of the specifics, and I believe it varies from state to state, but it's my understanding that anyone possessing (and having viewed) child pornography would be considered a "mandatory reporter" and would be legally required to report the abuse to authorities. In many states, all adults are considered mandatory reporters, and in others, anyone who has "visual evidence" of abuse is considered a mandatory reporter, based on this link:
[www.archatl.com]
So even if possession of child pornography were legal (protected by the first amendment), those who possess it would be legally required to report the abuse. This might be a good compromise, if we're really so concerned about this "slippery slope" with regards to first amendment rights. What would happen legally when people reported their own pornographic possessions? I have no idea. #virus
11/10/09
People already use other people's computer to hack in anonimity... why not use them to store files?
And that's why arresting people for "possession" of virtual files is something really complicated.
It's extremely hard for everyone who is not living in complete isolation to keep a thorough check on every file in their personal computers. And I'm talking about people who knows how to deal with their PCs VERY well... let alone people who don't.
A good exercise to this is taking a look at temporary internet files. You'll find stuff there you'll never find out where it came from.
If by any chance you got into a more suspicious website... by mistake or not (let's say you were doing a very innocent Google Image search) you could end up with very compromising stuff and never know about it.
But I feel I'm going off topic... so let's leave it at that. #virus
11/10/09
Why don't you have a seat?
Ok.
Why are you here?
I was just uh going to say hello...?
Uh-huh. It says here that you said you "want to bang you so hard all night long".
No, see, I... I thought she was 18!
Uh-huh. Let's see... ah here it is, "I want to pound your 14 year old ass until we hit peak oil" - did you say that?
it was uh... it's a typo!
Uh-huh. Let me ask you something: What makes you think that even a naive, libidinous 14 year old girl would want to touch your crusty Frankenstein-looking ass?
I uh.... I like turtles!
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
the bad guys have a vested interest, and the good guys have government jobs, and really can't get fired based on performance. #virus
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
Which landed me on a mailing list from them somehow. And, I'm used to seeing some strange porn titles, but the latest ones really are just so over the top as to make me re-read them to ensure I wasn't making it up. Because, my sick and twisted mind does that anyway.
But, I don't have any virii that puts porn on my PCs... #virus
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
Sounds a lot like a modern-day Salem Witch Trial. #virus