Every time I hear the "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." canard, I want to scream. I have everything to hide -- my LIFE. To me, it doesn't matter if my life is perfect, "normal," and utterly free of sin, excess, and debauchery -- it's still MY life, and no one else's business. I am currently (AFAIK) committing no crimes or acts of moral turpitude, yet that still doesn't mean I want my conversations, my financial transactions, my e-mail and browsing history, the books I read or music I listen to, etc. open to scrutiny, public, private, or governmental. It's still MY life, and my personal business, and I'll be damned if you or anyone else have a right to poke into it without my expressed consent.

Because this poor sap is one of the best examples of "low hanging fruit." They're going after him because it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to trace the original source of the images and nail the bastards who truly harmed the kids in the first place. They rack up another CP conviction, moralists are satisfied that another pedo has been nailed, and the general public cheers that the good guys are thinking of the children and fighting the scourge. Makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy (except, alas, the poor dude now serving hard time with "Rollo, the Amateur Proctologist" for a cellmate) and pure and smug in spite of the fact that the conviction does nothing -- repeat, NOTHING -- to actually put even the smallest dent in the problem of kiddie porn. He's just like those tens of thousands of small-time casual drug users doing jail time while the big cartels go merrily on.

"Yes." Next question?

Because we're more and more living in a "zero tolerance" society now. Everything must be black-and-white, either/or, no grey areas, no need to use reason or common sense to look at things like context, intent, actual impact/damage, etc. Easier that way: you don't have to think (nasty habit, that) or take responsibility for making decisions.

You could always use the old Three Stooges line: "When were you born?" "I don't remember -- I was pretty young at the time..."

Naturally. (*wink-wink* *nudge-nudge* say no more...)

Much better is the real-life example once related in an article I read. A machine in a factory had broken down, and when this guy asked the repairman what was wrong with it, he just sighed, "Fuckin' fucker's fucked."

Do speed limits stop most drivers from speeding? No. Do drug laws thwart most users of illegal substances? No. It is a matter of (a) a large mass of citizens who disagree with the law, and (b) insufficient resources to punish anywhere near all who break it.

We have an enormous younger generation that has grown up with digital music and video, and see nothing wrong with sharing what's on their electronic gizmos with others. Those RIAA lawsuits that are discussed ad infinitum here affect just a tiny percentage of those who have downloaded/uploaded/shared/partaken of "pirated" material. The RIAA does not have the resources to systematically go after every file sharer, and neither does the government have the resources to prosecute them all, either, any more than they have the ability to ticket every speeder or lock up every casual toker. People who want to freely share their digital data will continue to do so. The alleged, mysterious treaty alluded to may make it easier to some extent for major infringers to be targeted, but there aren't enough prosecutors, judges, and jails in the world to nail everyone who has a few songs or movies that they didn't pay for on their hard drives or portable devices.

Possessing pot has been illegal for a long time, yet millions of people still regularly light up, and most of them have never done jail time. More draconian laws regarding copyright infringement won't make much difference, either.

Now that is a concept I could embrace, if it serves to keep those young idjits with the mega-bass boom boxes on wheels from cruising my neighborhood and disturbing my peace.

(Insert obligatory "now get off my lawn" meme here...)

Revolution -- hell, yeah, I'm all for that! Count me in!!

Er...that is unless it conflicts with any of my TV shows. And, um...there's not going to be any violence like, say, shooting or anything, right? This is not going to, like, get me in trouble or anything like that, is it?

Oh, hell...on second thought, is there just somewhere I can send a check or something? But, hey, you need someone to post to Internet forums or call some talk shows, I'm your man!

Sincerely,
Mr. Typical American

I had no idea His Holiness was a Slashdot user....

A friend who sells books on eBay often sells used copies of the Jane's books (Jane's All the World's Aircraft, Jane's Fighting Ships, etc.), the annual editions of which sell new for $900+. He's listed many of these over the years, but recently out of nowhere he gets an inquisitory e-mail from Jane's, demanding that he inform them of the source from which he obtained the books, and strongly suggesting that he not list them anymore because the reduced prices he gets for resale are "diminishing the perceived value of our products." He was tempted to tell them what to stick where, but as he put it, "the next step may be legal, and right or wrong, I don't want to get into a transatlantic pissing match over this."

(So now, he sends any Jane's books he finds to me, I list them, and we split the profits. And no nastygrams from across the pond yet. Yay for me.)

A good example, though, of how even a legally misguided implied threat can intimidate someone. If my friend sold nothing but Jane's books, he'd be more inclined to fight, but he does a decent business without them, and just figures he'll avoid getting into something that he has neither the time or money to deal with.

Well, both the Interstate system (originally known as the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways) and the Internet (which grew out of ARPANET) were both originally conceived at least in part with government/military interests in mind.

You just can't trust civilians with these things...

Given that the percentage of Slashdot users who have a uterus is small enough to be rounded to zero, I think we can drop the contrived sexless pseudo-pronouns.....

They don't need to "invent" anything. Why do you think all jurisdictions have those "catch-all" laws on the books, like "disorderly conduct" or "creating a disturbance" or "being a public nuisance." These laws are deliberately vague so that if you act like a dick when the cop stops you, he's got plenty of leeway to charge you with something.