Yes, they sell arrogance combined with incompetence, as a recent observation I made at one of our customers shows.

My condolences on having to actually fix this type of mess. I usually only get to look at it and tell people that the code is insecure and sucks for some other reasons. Decent hourly rate though, do not go lower. Going cheap for software production has to be expensive, or they will never understand what they are doing wrong.

From recent experience, they provide outrageously expensive and highly arrogant, yet utterly incompetent consultants in the "big data" area.

Same as the FBI does with "terrorists" you mean?

From all the effort to fight pictures and not a lot effort to actually prevent children from being harmed, I conclude that the children are not in any way important to the people making these laws. Hence criminalizing drawings, renderings, text, etc. the same as documentation of actual abuse is just logical.

For pornography, that actually is already the case in some countries like Germany. It is called "Jugendanscheinspornography".

The problem is that there are a lot of things some people, sometimes even many people, find not acceptable, but it is still a very bad idea to make them criminal. For example, there are lots of people that do not like atheists. Make that criminal?

And then there is the little problem that all these arguments are based on escalation (i.e. first they look at images then they rape children), while substitution also has merit (i.e. instead of raping children, they just look at pictures). Without a solid scientific basis, outlawing drawings could well result in much more harm to children. Despite what the public seems to believe, there is no "obviously" here. It might even be necessary to allow some people free access (because they substitute), while strictly denying it to others (because they escalate). Any knee-jerk reactions, like the current ones and those of the near past are likely to do more harm than good (i.e. get more children abused), if history is any indicator.

So that means a person can paint such images, but cannot look at them or possess them? That does not make any sense. Like most of these laws.

You seem to have some problem with reality. Maybe get help?

What, you will not allow a budding totalitarian regime to do what it does best, namely terrorize its population? You must be a troll! Off to jail with you!

Of course. It is just like in 1984: Language gets controlled to that people may not voice their thoughts anymore.

It is also cheaper to have your client's browsers get hacked than your servers. But you are right, the bean-counters are at the root of most evil these days.

I know that. That person has the valid excuse that JavaScript was never intended to be used for anything large or security-critical. It was a quickly hacked-together tool to do small things like changing the color of a button on mouse-over. The problem is all the utterly clueless morons that think JavaScript and the browser are suitable for real computing.

That is just not true at all. Maybe look at what secure software engineering can do these days?

Thanks, that is exactly what I am saying. If technology is not done sanely, there usually is a huge cost to pay at some time that invalidates all advantaged gotten.