I get to see the REAL "dark Internet" every time my ISP's service goes out. *cue rimshot*

Similar statements can be made for most other crimes.

If you make it hard to obtain drugs, only those really determined to get them will go to the effort.

If you make it really hard to rob bank, only those really determined will bother.

If you make it really hard to find child pornography, only those really determined will keep searching, the rest will give up.

Of those who are looking for child porn for a sexual thrill, you've got several categories:

• Those who will see it once or maybe a few times and won't do it again (the curious, the thrill-seekers).
• Those who will continue to want it but will not "progress" to child molestation, trading, soliciting the creation of new porn, etc. AND who, if their supply is cut off, will not seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others (the "satisfied with just images" users).
• Those who, if their supply is NOT cut off, will progress to more serious forms of abuse (the "escalating" users).
• Those who, if their supply IS cut off, will progress to "local, real-life" forms of abusing others (the "substitution" users).
• Those who, if they cannot find child porn at all, will NOT seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others.
• Those who, if they cannot find child porn at all, WILL seek out "local, real-life" sexual outlets involving children or harming others.

There is also the issue of "perceived demands drives supply" - if those producers who are doing it for revenue or for the thrill of seeing their "hit count" go up have more customers, on the whole the supply of "new" child porn is likely to be higher than if they believe there is little demand for their images. More "new" child porn being distributed in the future pretty much means more actual, real-world abuse in the future.

My very strong hunch is that making it very hard to find child porn will be a net win for children, even if in particular situations you may have significant numbers of children whose dads molest them in person because he can't find his "methodone/child porn."

I'm all with you but if these people are in a country with weak law enforcement in this area, there's not much that Interpol or *insert child-porn-hating country with good law enforcement here* can do in the short term to put the abuser behind bars.

If they get their employees deputized or otherwise "blessed" by the powers that be, then it's okay.

You know who else is allowed to see child porn?

Lawmakers and their staff members in the performance of official duties that require looking at it.

According to someone I talked to in Washington a number of years ago, if a Congressperson needs some porn pulled for official use, the staff member he picks to get it for him is usually an older woman who presumably would have no interest in the contents beyond what is needed to verify it is what the Congressperson needs.

I heard from a source who was not authorized to speak on the matter that according to NSA taps of the CCTV cameras in the afterlife, the late Patrick McGoohan was quite upset.

So were Benjamin Franklin and most of the rest of our founding fathers.

I opt out of TV commercials every time I turn off the TV.

Some parents opt their kids out of frequent exposure to TV commercials by not having TV in the home.

[read parent for context]

Sure you are, you just have to go to another country to do so.

Unfortunately, slashdot.org sometimes stays blocked for a few more seconds. Must be that "slashdot effect" I keep hearing about.

I think my ISP does that already.

If I don't specifically ask for "slashdot.com" in my web browser, I don't get it. I guess my ISP must be blocking it. But fortunately, once I "ask" for it, I get it, usually within seconds.

To opt in to the Internet I actually have to sit down at a computer and turn it on, or pull out a cell phone and look at it, or ... well, you get the idea.

If it doesn't, then it doesn't block torrents/P2P.

Is it okay in the Home Office??? Just asking.

Censoring porn is easy.

Not censoring non-porn is easy.

Doing both at the same time is virtually impossible.

Well, it is still a system of "ON" and "OFF" at the physical layer, I would call that binary, wouldn't you?

Here they typically call you on the phone.

Note to Americans who get calls from Visa claiming fraud: Tell them "Who are you and how can I call you back [write down information], OK, thanks, I'll call my bank right now" then hang up.

Oh, and call your bank, since it might be legit.

I'm guessing he means the handshake protocols where the sender asks the receiver if he's ready to receive, and doesn't send until he gets confirmation.

NTS also has some rudimentary error-detection/correction built in:

The sender will tell the receiver how many words are in the message. If the receiver does't get the exact number of words or if he has any other reason to think the message wasn't properly received, he will notify the sender and they will try again. If the word count matches and the receiver doesn't believe there are any errors, he will tell the sender that the message was received.

If the sender does NOT receive that final confirmation, he will assume the message was not sent and will try sending it again either right then or later.