Extreme Porn suspect has internet access suspended (39)

How can they ban internet access given pre-pay 3G dongles/cafe/phoneboxes!

Let me guess the private security in disguise at ACPO had something to do with this particular sanction.

I'm off to see the Bootleg Beatles.
As the Bootleg Mark Chapman.

Well, if I were to count the number of articles published on theregister that cut across an area where I've got decent knowledge: at least a quarter of them have had a significant error. There were even a few about my last employer, in those there were more inaccuracies than facts.

It's one of those sites that appears to have a lot of posts that may provide a hint of what's going on, but you'll need to do the digging yourself.

That's not the point, the damage is already done - the person's life will already have been totally turned upside down. The rights and wrongs of this law, while very important for the few people targeted, are not going to be the important issue for the general population.

The government/state is adopting the classic "divide-and-conquer" approach. Even with modern heuristics, it is still an almost insurmountable technical task for the government to monitor millions of internet users at once: most ISPs do not have this capability - there's a fair amount of the internet held together with the networking equivalent of sticky tape.

So, there's far too much noise - how do you make the people you want to be watching stand out?

Well, there's been technology available to protect a user/publisher's anonymity for a while now (tor, freenet, etc) - and I would expect to see a new generation of these types of software in the next five years. The uptake is very low though, due to the perceived lack of need amongst general internet users, and some very serious reputation issues.. The available technologies also doesn't scale well to high traffic, so there's a high confidence that it's not being used to download loads of DVDs, it's low volume but more sensitive traffic.

What happens when pressure is applied: the threat of criminal prosecution is dangled and a few scapegoats are picked on. Suddenly, a lot more people get more technically aware and start looking after their online privacy.

The net effect of which is those in the population that *feel* they have something to hide or the need to protect themselves have separated themselves form the masses. So where before, most people would be hidden in the general noise, they have now labelled themselves quite nicely.

The government wins.

The only way to ensure the population wins is for privacy protecting technologies to be widely adopted, which isn't going to happen.

Righty-oh, that's quite enough cynicism for one night.

Some of The Register I have found myself disliking (particularly their childish axe to grind against Wikipedia), but I think before we dismiss articles out of hand, we should look at it the particular details. IME John Ozimek has always given good coverage of this law.

Even sites like the BBC, I've seen errors on. Whilst one shouldn't trust everything you read, it's also hopeless if you can't believe anything you read. With any source, you should always read with a critical eye.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

I have to agree with this. Especially when reporting anything legal, virtually all of the major news providers get details wrong.

John Oz's articles are always very good.

The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.

But check the facts. This is a bail condition.

That means it is something to which the defendant has agreed. It has not been imposed, but is part of a set of terms which the accused signs up to keep himself off remand in prison whilst awaiting trial. There hasn't been a trial yet.

I think it's a very backdoor way of introducing an indefensible concept. As yet it hasn't been defended, or been subject to court scrutiny. Courts impose penalties after a finding of guilt. The magistrates will pretty much rubberstamp what the old bill ask for if the defendant agrees. Which he would if he wanted to stay the right side of the prison door! I'm not happy with the idea that this might then be extended to be a condition of, say, a suspended sentence, post trial should guilt be established.

Nasty stuff happening.

I am wondering as to whom the onus is on to prove or disprove he had/had not the technical ability to recover such material?

SOS

I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. - Mahatma Gandhi
www.Londonmunch.co.uk
Londonmunch@hotmail.com - Enquiries

Punishment seems harsh before even going to court. Can't have a mobile phone, ds, psp, ps3 Xbox thingy and the like that can access the internet. Don't some fridges access the internet thingy as well these days? Maybe they should just hold him down and nail his ball sac to a piece of 3x2. Quicker and he may like that. lol

Are photos of extreme body piercings under the heading too? Tats can go wrong and endanger health too.

Next time the mass media show thousands of Muslims and christians self flagellating, whips cutting into their backs....mmmmm, will they find themselves up before the Beak? probably not, ITV BBC and SKY would fight it and win. Hit the little guy where it hurts (so to speak)and set a legal precedent.

Stand by your delete buttons guys, oh and as far as the hard drives? I suggest a nice big lump hammer.

Thats why I left the christian faith, they only allowed self flagellation and not that of others.

SOS

I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers. - Mahatma Gandhi
www.Londonmunch.co.uk
Londonmunch@hotmail.com - Enquiries