Posts by Anonymous Hero 9 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Nov 2008
Personally, I find tabs *especially* useful with a slow connection. (Tor, rather then dial-up, in my case.) That way I can queue up pages and let them load while I read something else.
Sometimes I wish I could have nested tabs, but that kinda goes against the clean interface thing huh? Microsoft might be on the right track with grouping, except being Microsoft, they probably implemented it in an irritating and nonintuitive manner. (Though I admit, I haven't actually tried it.)
Actually one of the better known sites on the list is an Australian company (though I believe their site is hosted in the US). It's a perfectly legal porn site, and as porn goes, fairly unobjectionable. It leans towards softcore and also has a good reputation for treating its models respectfully.
Good advice to be sure, but you're missing the point. These weren't posted publicly, they were stolen after gaining access to the the girls' accounts. Considering the girls were underage I'm surprised they're not treating this rogue admin as dangerous pedo.
Maybe that would be too embarrassing for the police since they used to employ him. Come to think of it, if he's got a taste for underage nudes, I bet he swiped some REAL interesting pics from that job.
> > "Indecent " is even more subjective than "pornography", but I think we can agree that the former includes all of the latter plus some content that is not explicit enough to be considered pornography.
> This is precisely the wrong way around. Pornography is legal (unless banned for some other reason e.g. like here, it involves underage children). Obscenity is not legal, and is neither a subset nor a superset of pornographic material. This is basic background knowledge not just for this issue but of UK censorship laws in general.
It's you who needs to read up on the law. Indecency and obscenity are not the same. Obscenity is defined as that which "tends to deprave and corrupt" those who see it (probably an empty set in real life). Indecency does not have a firm definition, but if you have any doubt that it's a lower standard than pornography try dropping your trousers at Tesco, see what crime you get charged with.
Since it keeps coming up, I'm going to harp on the terminology issue again.
Child pornography, indecent images of children, child abuse images. People tend to treat these terms as interchangeable, but they are not.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (or variations thereof: child porn, kiddy porn) is the most common term and probably closest to what people mean most of the time. Obviously this term refers to material which shows a child and is pornographic (sexually explicit for the purpose of arousing the viewer). Some people (including the IWF) object to this term on the grounds that by analogy with adult pornography it implies the child is a willing participant. (Which in reality may or may not be the case.)
INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN is the legal term in the UK. "Indecent " is even more subjective than "pornography", but I think we can agree that the former includes all of the latter plus some content that is not explicit enough to be considered pornography. This is one of the strictest laws around on the subject.
CHILD ABUSE IMAGES is the term preferred child protection activists and organizations such as IWF. Logically this would mean an image of a child being abused, which understandably provokes an emotional response. Unfortunately people rarely mean that when they say it. Nobody takes this to mean images of non-sexual abuse (except in Australia). Instead they mean "child pornography" or even the broader "indecent images of children". This is inaccurate because there is nothing in the definition of those terms which indicated there must be abuse.
Mixing up these terms causes quite a bit of confusion. For instance, in this case IWF says "we block child abuse images" and then goes on to block a picture because they deem it indecent (and thus illegal) and people seeing this conclude that "IWF accuses Wikipedia of hosting child pornography". Wot?
The Virgin Killer cover may be indecent, but it is not pornographic or an image of child abuse. If a child decides of his or her on free will to masturbate in front of a webcam, the result is child pornography, and indecent, but still not an image of child abuse. If the police are caught on camera tazing a 10-year-old, that's an image of child abuse, but not indecent or pornographic.
So, GET IT RIGHT people!
Here's a helpful Venn Diagram: (IIoC {CP [CAI } ) ]
To add to Henry Wertz' list.
5) Grudge. They don't like you. That could be for any number of reasons.
6) Prejudice. Driving while black is the classic example.
7) Covering up. This kind of falls under mistakes too, but once they've made a mistake, sometimes it's easier to run with it than admit it was a mistake.
But probably even more common than these is when they don't pick a "random" guy, but someone they're pretty sure is a "bad" guy. They just unfortunately don't have any proper evidence. How tempting it must be to make some up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
