I am not a pedo, am attracted to girls ~16-36ish but would never try anything with someone under 18. That out of the way, let me explain why I think CP should be legal.
On a technical scale:
Computer files are strings of binary. Binary consists of 1's and 0's. Anything that can be expressed as a binary string can be expressed as a decimal number also. On a logical level, CP images can not be separated from the decimal number that their binary string converts to. CP being illegal means that some large numbers are illegal. Most laws say that encrypted CP is illegal also. But, that is illogical. With the proper key to decrypt and the proper algorithm, ANYTHING CAN BE ENCRYPTED CP.
Let's say the number 5,683,283 is a decimal number that converts to a binary string that is interpreted as a CP image by an image viewing program. This is not the case, the number is much smaller than the sort of numbers that would make any type of picture, but just for example. Let's say that 827,392,293,538 is the decimal number that represents a binary string that is interpreted by an OS as a video game. The difference between 5,683,283 and 827,392,293,538 is 827,386,610,255. So the video game is cipher text, the key is 827,386,610,255 and the decryption algorithm is to subtract the key from the ciphertext to get the plain text. OMG that means the video game you just downloaded is encrypted CP!!!! Everything on the fucking internet is encrypted CP because with some key you can convert it to CP.
The trick is that with most things you can't and they were not made to be used that way. CP encrypted is still CP; something that was not CP and is encrypted, or was never even encrypted, but through some distorted decryption can appear to be CP is not CP. You made it into something that looks like CP so you are still at fault. Your argument fails. Better luck next time, paedophile.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-07 23:34
ANYTHING CAN BE ENCRYPTED CP.
But anything encrypted is CP
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-08 0:14
Write an algorithm that takes a random, normalized, binary sequence of finite length and interprets it into a CP image.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-08 0:17
Unfortunately I'm afraid judges are sane people, not computer scientists.
The problem is that you're assuming that the parts is the materials that make up the content, and not the whole. Who is to say that the air is truly "air," and that a table is truly a "table," when in fact those things are really made up of molecules, which in turn are made up particles, which in turn may themselves be made up of configurations of even smaller things?
In this view, the truth are those things that have been agreed upon by consensus. We can all agree that this is air and this is a table because based on our shared perceptions, as dictated by the limitations of our senses, this consensus can make useful sense to us, and thus we will make it. Similarly, as we do not view the table as many individual molecules, but one discreet object that we refer to by name, so to do we not see the CP image as a number, or a set of digits, or even an array of pixels; but as a depiction of child abuse. There are distinctions to be made within that consensus, regarding the content itself; but not how that content is expressed. Our perceptions will allow us all to view CP, at the very least, as an image.
The controversy lies in your assumption that the parts and materials that make up the whole is the content, and not the whole that is the content. The whole, in this case, is decided by consensus, like most matters of rhetoric. For example, who is to say that the air is truly "air," and that a table is truly a "table," when we know that those things are made up of many tiny molecules; which, in turn, made up of particles; which, in turn, may themselves be made up of even smaller things? Why even make a distinction between "air" and "table" in the first place, when we know that they are all made up of the same small, conceptually inconsequential units?
In this view, truths are those things that have been agreed upon by consensus. We have all agreed that this is "air" and this is "a table" because, based on our shared perceptions -- which are themselves dictated by the limitations of our senses -- this consensus makes useful sense to us. There may be times when it would not be right to call the air simply "the air," at which point it would again be up to consensus to determine whether or not a more precise definition would be appropriate.
Similarly, we not see the CP image as a number, or a set of digits, or even an array of pixels; but as an image that depicts child abuse. There are distinctions to be made within that consensus in regards to the content itself -- whether or not a particular image is child abuse -- but in these cases, it is the content that is the controversy, and not how that content is physically expressed, by molecules or by numbers; but rather, by the confines of our senses: as an image.
>>6,7
Wow, OK. I seriously fail at English. My apologies for all the missing conjunctions and failed grammar.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-08 0:33
The quarks composing the matter surrounding me at any given time could in theory be rearranged into a delicious loli willing to allow me to HAX HER ANUS all night long.
Maybe I should've gone into theoretical physics instead. ;_;
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-08 0:41
We are all part of a computer simulation and are therefore fictional characters, anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-08 1:16
We are all part of a computer simulation and are therefore functional characters, anyway.
We all reside within closures and are therefore functional characters, anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-08 17:14
Look at it this way.
On most browsers, you can bring up your browsing history by pressing Control-H. (No, this is not going to become a discussion of werecows.) On Firefox, this brings up a sidebar that shows up on the left side of the window. If you put your mouse over the edge of the sidebar, the cursor will turn into a different kind of arrow. By clicking and dragging it, you can move the edge of the sidebar back and forth. You are, to put it another way, manipulating the border between the normal window and the history window. By moving the mouse, you can increase the portion of the window devoted to either part. In a more extreme view of this situation, you're increasing or decreasing the amount of existence the sidebar has.
Now, let's apply this idea to something more abstract. Look out your window. If you don't live in a highly urbanized area, you should be able to see the horizon. Think of this as the border between the land and the sky. The land and sky are obviously distinguishable thanks to this boundary. Now, if you were to "drag" the sash between the sky and the land, or to manipulate the border between land and sky, you would end up causing the sky to become larger and the land to become smaller, or vice versa. An effect of this might be to cause something that was just on the ground to suddenly be hundreds of feet in the air. Truly a frightening situation to be in. So, look at it this way - manipulating the border between two physical things shifts whatever balance there is in the interaction between those things. Alternatively, by manipulating the border between two things, you can change the manner in which they exist.
Still, this isn't *that* abstract, since it's still dealing with real things in the real world. Many believe that in this world, there are those things that are true, and those that obviously aren't. This divides reality into two extremes: truth and falsehood. But, since we have two extremes, logically one can imagine a boundary between those two extremes - the border between truth and lies. If one were to manipulate this border, suddenly things that were pure fantasy (flying pigs, for the sake of argument) have become reality - or things from reality have ceased to exist. This is how Yukari is said to have invaded the moon - by manipulating the border between truth and lies, as applied to the reflection of the moon on a pond, she was able to make the reflection of the moon into a manifestation of the actual moon, and so send her youkai army onto it. This is what's truly amazing about Yukari's power - the ability to manipulate the border between completely abstract concepts allows her to fundamentally change reality as we know it (at least in terms of two abstract concepts).
Take an ordinary JPEG and a "secret" JPEG, both of identical size and dimensions, XOR them together (excluding the header) to create some "garbage", give this a JPEG header and told it's valid (even though it's just noise) and destroy the secret. Then you just distribute the the normal picture (with the XORed one imagerar'd into it, or alongside it, or whatever) and write a program to XOR them together (along with a magic key, probably, and ignore the header), displaying the image from RAM and never once writing it to disk.
But I think VIEWING CP should be legal. Who does it harm?
Creating CP is bad- you're harming a child who is not old enough to give consent. Criminalizing paying for CP is justifiable- you're supporting the market. But viewing it on the interwebz for free? I see nothing wrong.
>>23
You're supporting the market just by viewing it as well. People create CP for gratification. This can be monetary, but it doesn't have to be. The thrill of having an audience is enough to ensure CP gets created.
>>25
It would be if the laws were actually about just viewing CP rather than possession.
>>1
Wow thats pretty cool, but why is this on /prog/?
back to /vip/
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-09 15:32
I always thought the CP laws were around to prevent the harm and profiteering off the abuse of children.
Now, what if we create an intelligent system capable of visualizing CP (aka generative computer vision) given basic characteristics of the human anatomy and sex (and not using actual CP as training data). Should viewing of this generated yet realistic CP be considered illegal? Even if no one was harmed in the process?
If we accept that premise, than generative computer vision of CP (aka visualizing CP in your brain (aka thought)) would be considered a crime.
What happens when we gain the technology to read our other people's mental visual states, would thinking about certain things get you thrown in jail?
Some things to think about.
Name:
Anonymous2010-04-09 15:38
>>30
You aren't supposed to be insightful on prague!
>>30 I always thought the CP laws were around to prevent the harm and profiteering off the abuse of children.
Not so. Recent definitions of the law, in the UK and the US I believe, include acts both real and depicted. This has even led to some trials being held based on evidence of cartoons.
What happens when we gain the technology to read our other people's mental visual states, would thinking about certain things get you thrown in jail?
The difference between that and a thought crime is the difference between thought and action. Culturally and legally, we make the distinction; a thought is an intangible -- not a reality, not in this world -- until a person wills it to be so through action. And thus we convene to determine whether or not a defendant has committed a crime. Similarly, we do not imprison people who have gone to great lengths to plan the death of another, so long as they have done no thing to execute that plan, nor have they broken any other laws along the way. Only after there has been an action to that effect -- a successful or attempted murder -- will the defendant's actual thoughts -- premeditation -- come into play.
>>33 Similarly, we do not imprison people who have gone to great lengths to plan the death of another, so long as they have done no thing to execute that plan, nor have they broken any other laws along the way. Only after there has been an action to that effect ─a successful or attempted murder─ will the defendant's actual thoughts ─premeditation─ come into play.
Obviously you don't know how Spanish justice works. Even judges publicly state that merely thinking about some illegal acts like terrorism is enough to trial people, even if in the trial itself nothing can be proven.
tl;dr Spanish judges are not very keen of presumption of innocence.