Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:This is crazy... (Score 2) 301

The problem here is... just viewing the picture is creating a 'demand' for such material, and therefore a supply must be created, which exploits minors. I'm not really on board with the drawings of such things being forbidden as well, that seems like overkill to me, and drawings may supply the consumers of such materials that aren't exploitative of minors. It's an ugly nasty situation for sure.

You're saying people have sex with children just to get some high fives online? It's illogical on its face. They might be more likely to record it if they're already doing it, but that's about it. Commercial transactions are an entirely different issue. Also, some people enjoy watching children beaten and brutally murdered. But that's legal (as long as the child isn't naked) to possess pictures/videos of. People get off on adults being raped too, but videos of that are legal. If viewing encourages the act, why aren't things like that illegal? Or maybe we should arrest anyone who has adult porn they can't find signed affidavits of affirmative consent for? The laws banning CP were created when most of it was purchased. When that was no longer the case they made up other rationales with little evidence and zero discussion of whether such a thin link was worth a massive infringement on freedom (destroying someones life because of data they possess) because why on earth would LE ever want to give up the massive power and carte blanche to ignore half the constitution that came with it. If it was really about protecting victims of crimes or that viewing encouraged crimes, a whole host of other things would be illegal.
You mentioned cartoons filling demand, but that doesn't go far enough: some studies have even indicated legal possession of already-created freely acquired CP (i.e. no realistic contribution to market) can actually satisfy a pedo so they don't go out and actually molest a kid, at a better success rate than completely abstaining from viewing such images. However disgusting CP is, if it prevents pedos from becoming child molesters at a higher rate than it encourages them to, the net result is less children hurt-- and that should be the goal, and right now it's not: we're far more interested in the low-hanging fruit of viewers.

Comment Re:This is crazy... (Score 1) 301

Umm what about the undercover cop that sells drugs to victim drug users?? They don't just take their money and cuff them they usually make a true deal and the user is grabbed once the drugs are in their possession.

When an operation like that is conducted it's typically fake drugs. Pharma companies like Purdue and Actavis sell identical copies of their oxycodone pills without the oxycodone to law enforcement for example. Powders are obviously easy to fake. But in any case, they sure as hell don't sell to tens of thousands of buyers, let the buyers go home, enjoy the drugs, and pass some along to others, then sell some more to them a few days later, maybe bust them or not some months later, or if they're not US citizens just tell some other cops, for the tiny minority that they could follow to begin with (remember, this exploit only caught those people using older versions *with javascript enabled*.. who in their right mind does ANYTHING on the dark web with scripting enabled?).

Comment Re: There is only one goal (Score 1) 555

I had that happen once. I shifted into neutral, restarted the engine, and just shifted directly into 3rd gear since I was still going about 35. Sure was odd, and I'd have been pretty done for had it happened just before a curve since it took 2-3s before I figured out to just turn the wheel much harder to steer and another 4 to get back power steering. This was in a Ford with a manual trans.
I drove over 100,000 miles on that car and it only happened once. But that once was also the only driving situation where mechanical car failure was a lethal threat and was once too many. So a smart gun where mechanical failure could mean death? I for one would much rather accept the tradeoff of being more responsible for securing it against others. If others want it the other way around, that would be fine except that the left has made it quite clear that will become the only option. Unless you're a cop of course. (here in NYC cops and soldiers with fully automatic assault rifles hang around subway stations searching bags, then arresting anyone with a knife that a cop can flip open with one hand even if it takes 20 tries. doesn't everyone just feel so safe with such a massive force disparity??)

Comment This is why... (Score 1) 263

"Of course I deleted those photos."

But I'm not enough of a jerk to actually post them online. Telling me I can't have something you gave me anymore just pisses me off, and it's flat out wrong it shouldn't make a difference what it is. Publicizing is different tho. People need to get over their hangups about sex and nudity anyway... it's ridiculous that society is this advanced but a naked picture can ruin your life.

Comment Re:Good for CMU. (Score 1) 72

There is absolutely no way that catching a few druggies could possibly be worth tainting the reputation of a respected security research institution with the suspicion of being just another malware vendor for the feds.

No, but like many things it probably started with the feds saying 'you have to help us catch those evil child abusers hiding on Tor and posting their sick images'. Because who can oppose that? There's also 'Without these powers, the terrorists will attack again!' Because nobody wants to stop the government from getting terrorists. But pretty soon it's 'well, we've got power, why shouldn't we also use it against those evil drug traffickers?' and suddenly, much like PATRIOT act powers, drug cases become the predominant use of new abilities. Back in the day getting the druggies was enough of an excuse on its own to trample the constitution, but now they need to justify their powers with OMG PEDOS! or OMG TERRISTS! and bust 1-2 of them, THEN they can go after the hundreds of drug arrests just dripping with forfetiable assets and pocket-filling cash and dope on the table.
And it's such an effective skeleton key because whatever arguments you possibly make are drowned out by people screaming that you're supporting child abusers and terrorists.

Comment Re:The world is crying out for better pain killers (Score 1) 151

Perhaps you're confused as to what "massively overprescribed" and "pill mill" actually mean. I assure you, the kind of place that will write you a bunch of extra scripts in relatives names (to avoid suspicious per-person prescribing) without doing examinations (because they see 15+ patients/hr) are NOT the kind of place you wind up in by accident. At a bare minimum, the 4 hour long line of 20- and 30- somethings who look perfectly healthy would clue you in, and normal people wouldn't want a doctor who doesn't examine or talk to them. Some would require, and some just pressured, using their affiliate pharmacies. The ones that required them, were typically all empty shelves with boxes of only painkillers and a couple others on the floor, cash only, with several armed guards.
As for "massively overprescribed", it's much rarer to find a true pill mill doing this now, but a few years ago in FL you could walk in and get 150 80mg OxyContin's, 300 30mg instant-release oxycodone, 150 10mg instant release oxymorphone or 4- to 8- mg hydromorphone, on top of 90x2mg alprazolam (xanax) tablets, and even some Adderall or dexedrine (amphetamines) for the tiredness. This was a fairly typical pill mill visit, and was a 30-day supply. Some people take this much legitimately, but that's truly rare in 20- and 30- somethings.
(and if you think this portrayal is inaccurate, you're definitely not familiar with pill mills and have confused them with normal pain management doctors; which to be fair is what the DEA and mass media have done.. lump in the actual criminal places with unfairly accused pain management practices).

Comment Re:The world is crying out for better pain killers (Score 5, Informative) 151

There's a good reason why doctors are hostile to analgesics.

They're scared of the DEA if they prescribe opiates in a way that offends the local field office.

So out come the opiates, however, opiates quickly induce tolerance so larger and larger doses are required.

So? Medical literature shows no additional side effects from even extreme doses (some non-terminal chronic pain sufferers even take 800+mg/day of oxycodone without issue)

And the tolerance becomes addiction, and the brain starts getting re-wired.

Despite the anecdotes, there's no medical evidence this happens anything more than a tiny minority of the time in patients who aren't already drug abusers. Dependence is not the same as addiction.

Not to mention the side effects of opiates, which aren't all that nice either.

Constipation, tiny bit of immune suppression rarely clinically significant, and...? Do you mean the effect of non-prescribed opiates due to prohibition rather than the substances themselves? People with tolerance to opiates aren't impaired and nodding out if they're being properly managed.

It can take *years* for a brain re-wired by long term use of opiates can return to "sort of" normal, if ever.

Among addicts with the medically distinct condition of addiction. As mentioned, a very small minority of those treated with opioids. And the statement should be more like a 1-3 months to 'sort of' normal, and 'if ever' for 'totally normal'.

It's much more than "moral panic" over opiates. The drugs are frankly dangerous, and even with the very best management practices, they will spin out of control if a person is on them too long.

It actually is moral panic. Medically speaking, opiates are far safer than the vast majority of prescription drugs. You sound like all your knowledge of opioid treatment comes exclusively from anti-drug propaganda sources. It sure as hell didn't come from the medical community.

I'd only want to be on large amounts of opiates if I were terminally ill.

Well you're into that whole drug war propaganda thing where you believe everyone prescribed some Vicodin for a toothache is shooting up heroin with dirty needles while homeless in an alley a few months later. So if you want to suffer, go for it. But respect the rights of others to not want to suffer because of opioid hysteria like you're spreading. And even if you want to go on believing that hysteria, I hope we can at least agree that the DEA shouldn't be setting treatment guidelines like it is now, and it should be left up to the patient and their doctor. (if you're getting massively overprescribed by a pill mill, it's a situation you've gone out of your way to get to)

Comment Re:Junkies (Score 4, Interesting) 151

Heroin peddlers, illegal and legal alike, will shut this research down.

Actual heroin dealers are probably thrilled... less access to pills = more demand for powder, as our brilliant drug warriors recently proved by sending tens of thousands of people away from doctors and pharmacists and into the arms of heroin dealers. But better 1000 people suffer in agony than 1 person take his pills to feel good, amirite? The DEA controls how your pain is treated now, not your doctor. And their philosophy? "Not dying soon? Not screaming loud enough to give me a headache? No pain relief for you!"
As for the legal guys... pretty sure this will be something they can charge out the ass for that you'll have to take at least daily.

Comment Ransomeware can have horrible consequences (Score 4, Funny) 168

I don't work in IT and hate end-user support. So one day I come into work and the overnight guy has gotten a very important and not-redundant system ransomewared. He was the one known the the office computer guy. He couldn't fix it despite trying for hours, and I let my nerd ego get in the way and fixed it in 20 minutes (this was days where they just blocked any action rather than encrypt files; it tried to block the boot menu, but if you got in in the second it took before the malware driver loaded, you could get to safe mode then system restore, which did the trick). After that, instead of a call to IT and an hour on the phone, or a day until a tech showed up in person, it become my responsibility to fix every minor (and major) computer issue in the office.
F* ransomware.

Comment Re:The judge got paid on this one. (Score 1) 101

But they weren't getting notices that people on the service were violating the law. They got notices saying that the *AAs believed that their customers were violating the law. There's no hard evidence that someone who the *AA sends a notice to is actually guilty of that charge unless they do a proper investigation.

The hard evidence is the hard cash the *AA spent making sure all judges and politicians believe those accusations are sufficiently infallible that companies must be forced to help "protect" the "job creators" of the intellectual property cartels in their fight for "artists rights". It's like you think we have a fair and balanced system instead of one so ridiculously stacked in favor of copyright that buying computers and software to run content scanning software that gives holders carte blanche to delete whatever is, and has held to be via litigation, the only way to run a video or storage site without being sued into oblivion. So what if the DMCA says notice and takedown is enough.
Facts don't matter. The politicians and courts have been sold, compliance with the law isn't sufficient. You're aiding piracy if you don't go far enough beyond legal compliance that the *AA is satisfied you're "doing enough" (giving them absolute control, and paying for it).

Comment Re:Clueless. (Score 1) 202

And afterwards "they" always say: oh yes, we had this guy on our watchlist. So - then fucking do something with that information!!!

But they couldn't, because of antiquated laws and activist judges who keep ruling that the bill of rights is only 90% void instead of 100%! They need more power and less oversight, and the people need to stop worrying about their so-called "rights" because the government promises to only target terrorists*, and you're not a terrorist, are you???

* - As a small minority of targets... but they're so hard to identify, and you know who else is evil? People who look at CP; surely you don't object to that right?? Now why can't the powers be used to target drug offenders? And insider traders. And criminals. And potential criminals. But of courses terrorists weren't pretext, they may represent only 1% of anti-terrorism law usage, but 100% of what PR can make people think it's for.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 418

Physical mail can't be interfered with without a court order, is secure, cheap and reliable.

A "court order" means a rubber stamp when an inspector wants a peek. If you're a target, they'll find something suspicious about your package for sure. "The drug/bomb dog alerted." = indisputable probable cause for search to the courts; if it's just a DVD, well, someone obviously did coke off it once. International mail is the worst. There's actually a long list of qualifiers for a suspicious item that can be used to justify a search. What's even worse, they're true pros and opening and re-sealing without leaving evidence, so the only time you even find out is if they seize and send you a notice (love letter), or kick in your door, shoot your pets, and order to the ground with an automatic weapon anyone old enough to stand- shortly after you receive it.
So while if you're not being investigated, you can send (or receive; but they can get a warrant for all mail FROM a suspicious address) non-drug items without worrying about searches, the moment they're actually interested in your mail all the inspections and weak grounds for probable cause we allowed in the name of stopping drugs-via-mail or explosives-via-mail will almost certainly turn something up that lets them open it. The fact they need a judge to rubber stamp their probable cause warrant isn't much protection.

And this is in the US, where we allegedly still have some rights. The situation in the UK is almost certainly worse.

Comment Re:11 cents a minute? (Score 2) 173

Phone policy varies wildly. In some jails, there's even phones right in the cells (4-6 inmates). They were turned on from 7am-11pm; you could talk your way through $60/day easily; and there was no "qualifying"... you could lose the privilege from abuse; but no approvals, no white lists reviewed by staff, no restriction on calling mobile numbers, etc. Could even have conference calls (against the phone companies policy, but unenforced).
Other places; 4 phones for 64 inmates with all sorts of restrictions on time of use (not during meals, lockdowns, searches, commissary, after lights out, etc). So after a call, back of the line, and good luck getting another one in before the next shut down. Every time the doors buzzed, everyone charged the phones like the bulls of Pamplona.
And god forbid you're in confinement (not just discipline... "protective custody", sex charges, medical, psych/suicide watch, juvenile, high profile case, etc, all can get you 23+ hrs/day solitary). MAYBE once per day you could talk an officer into wheeling the phone to the door so you can make a call through the slot... the cord too short to sit or stand, so you'd have to kneel on the concrete the whole time.

And all 3 of those scenarios was in just one jail... the only constant? The obscene expense. Broke inmates constantly begged and traded meals to get people with money in their phone account to dial children and wives.
Although the phone company did do one cool thing... video visitation over the internet with anyone, anywhere in the world for like $10 for a 1 hour visit (forget exact amount; but cheap compared to regular calls).

Slashdot Top Deals

Mathematics is the only science where one never knows what one is talking about nor whether what is said is true. -- Russell