You do realize that if they got far enough to be able to deface a site they had access to the server side right?

No. TOR webhosts are usually virtualized environments where the only thing accessible to the user account is the TOR router, i.e. virtual IP address.

You would not only have to root the webhost but also break out of the virtual machine to get to the underlying real hardware host and its real IP address.

Freedom Hosting sites were rooted before and not just by Anonymous but by International Law Enforcement agencies. On some of them they found sufficient trace data to identify the owners, which was followed by arrests. But they were never able to identify the IP addresses of the actual Freedom Hosting machines.

Yes, I get that you just don't like Anonymous but please be less "trolly" about it.

See above.

Well, so they took down those "porn" websites, but one has to ask, why the authorities have done nothing, preferring to sit on their backsides? Politicians or police using such sites and they want to cover it up?

Sigh. Quality of Slashdot readership is steadily going down.

These were TOR sites. That means that the hosting servers are near impossible to track because the TOR network is meant to allow for anonymous hosting.

Subsequently, unless you manage to globally packet-inspect the entire Internet (which is the very thing that the child-porn crusaders advocate, along with introducing a totalitarian global police state to "protect the children") or somehow crack in and identify the location of these servers from whatever data is within, you cannot even tell what country they are in.

Freedom Hosting is an extreme libertarian host service, with 0% censorship rules, which is meant to host sites of political dissidents and other web contents that is likely to get you killed by a mob of raving religious lunatics for breaking whatever taboo in whatever nut-infested country you happen to live.

So Anonymous cracked into some sites hosted on Freedom Hosting and defaced them, stole some meaningless login ids (like those of people logging in with the names of their least-liked politicians or neighbours) and did not even get the IP addresses of the servers or the users because on the TOR network they would be meaningless.

End result: upgraded and hardened CP sites on TOR.

This action defines the very concepts of "pointless", "futile" and "counterproductive". Which not very surprising since it is usually the fate of all vigilante witch-hunts in the long run ...

By your interpretation I can walk into your house and take pictures of you, since the charter gives you no rights of privacy while my right to photograph is in charter, and technically in the charter you have no right to a house either.

That is not so, I can deny you entry into my house. But once you are in, you have rights that I cannot take away from you. You do not become by slave just because you entered my house.

Similarly, if I leave a window open and you take a shot of me with your camera from the street I cannot get you to give it up because my right to privacy ended the moment I paraded before the open window.

The charter guarantees you right to property (like a house), but it is limited by other people's charter rights! You having a house does not make you into an absolute monarch!

I'm going to stop arguing here, because I think you're wrong and nothing will convince you. You've taken the charter and done a harry potter 'reductio ad absurdum' on it, and come up with a similar work of fiction.

If I were wrong, every mall owner could carry out executions of shoplifters and sell tickets to them for the other mall-goers, since Charter rights would not apply in his mall!

It is you who clearly fantasizes about your property rights granting you supreme power over everyone who sets foot on your land.

and the charter does not mean that other rights do not exist, (section 26 of the charter)

Which is irrelevant to the discussion since I never claimed that the Charter replaces all other rights. But in situations when other rights conflict with the Charter, it is the charter that wins. Otherwise it would be quite pointless if everyone with a parcel of land could set up his or her own sovereign kingdom and do whatever he or she wished with anyone who was unlucky enough to set foot on it, which seems to be your very interpretation of the law, that the land owner's right to do what he wants with it overrides everything, including another person's right to life!

Ango-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due process of law.(4)

That means that I can't take shit away from you without a due process. It does not mean that you can do whatever you want with your stuff, you can't kill people with your knife - even if it is yours, and you can't do whatever you want with people on your property - even if it is yours.

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada

This means that the Charter does not remove any other rights people have IN ADDITION to the charter, i.e. it is cumulative with other existing rights! It does NOT mean that other rights can replace the Charter!

your claims that charter rights supercede a persons right to property and the security of their property are not how courts have ruled, at all, ever.

Given your reading comprehension problems above, this discussion is going nowhere.

Also, I never claimed that the Charter removes someone's right to property, I said that the right to property cannot be used to override someone's Charter rights. The fact that you are an owner of a crowbar does not give you the right to use it to brain random passer-bys, even if they are on a plot of land you own.

You're forgetting something: if a child views porn, their innocent little mind will be obliterated in less than a second.

Not to mention that the resulting explosion will be at least 60 kilotons of TNT, 3 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb ....

Dude, get a real keyboard. I can't figure out what you are trying to say here....

except your infringing on his charter rights on his property.

No I don't. Point me out to the Charter where it says something to the effect of "and you get to make any rule you want on your property, even to nullify this Charter". I dare you.

Its the reason why abortion protesters have to stand outside the property, even though they certainly have a right to protest. Just because you have a right to photograph doesn't mean you have a right to photograph in someone else's place of business.

I already pointed out that the reason is not that they are protesters (btw, define a "protester" - does he need a banner? does he need to shout? or a mere t-shirt would do? or maybe even a coloured ribbon on his arm? do you get to throw out anyone whose looks you don't like?) it is because they are not allowed to obstruct business, which is a separate, specific law!

A sign saying "no photography", or a guard saying you can't take pictures, is neither unenforceable nor vague.

My sunglasses take photos. Enforce your "no photography" rule on me. Oh, you can't tell which sunglasses take photos? How about cell phones? Is that phone I am talking on taking photos? How can you tell?

As I said, unenforceable without either outright violations of the Charter (such as searches and confiscation of possessions) or wholly arbitrary "enforcement" ("Hey, I don't like the looks of you! You bloody Chinese are always taking photos! Get out!")

This should be glaringly obvious to anyone with even an iota of common sense.

... because your charter rights don't necessarily invalidate other people's rights.

So what you are saying is that other people's rights ("property owner's" rights in particular) invalidate my rights!

This has, of course, been always the position of all land owners since times immemorial, with many actually claiming that whomever was on their property had no rights whatsoever and was in fact not a person but their property also!

Its the "property ownership overrides all human rights" motto that is the very darling of moneyed interests world over.

Unfortunately for them, silly documents like the Charter are, so far, still more potent then their greed and desire to control others.

The owner can make rules there, and your attempts to enforce your right will certainly infringe on his.

As it was pointed out multiple times to you, his rights to make rules on his property cannot override the rules of the society at large. Otherwise he would be able to "mandate" your bloody murder via an axe as soon as you stepped onto his property too. The Charter is supreme to what he can "mandate" on his property, even if you and him both are willing to pretend otherwise.

It's never gone to the supreme court because it would be ridiculous in the case being described.

"Ridiculous" is the exact same word which the shop owners in the Southern states used when it was suggested to them that their "No Dogs and Blacks" rule was unconstitutional. I already pointed out that the very definitions of a "camera" and "taking pictures" make such rules systematically unenforceable and thus their enforcement would have to be, by definition, completely arbitrary - something that is clearly not allowed under the Charter.

Kids will figure it all out they have been for thousands of years without porns help.

... or ...

Kids have a right not to be forced to view anything they done want too.

pick one!

It amuses me to no end how all of you "moralists" can't make a single post without at least one massive, glaring self-contradiction.

You see, with the exception of the blind, kids are "forced" to view their own genitalia. Unless, of course, embedded in a full-body burka from birth by their insane parents to "protect" the kids from the shock of observing his own penis while pissing or her own vagina in a mirror. I assume that is what you've done to your kids, no? Otherwise your rant against the reality would be somewhat hypocritical.

And then there are all those dogs, rabbits and other common animals that can be so inconsiderate and fuck in front of your children, which is the very reason why you keep your children locked up in the basement without windows so that you can ensure that they have a "choice" as to when to view such things, surely?

In fact this has nothing whatsoever to do with kids having a "choice" but with you wanting to control what they see and when they see it. It is all about you wanting to remove from the world all the imagery that offends you, or at least to make sure that all images that can somehow be viewed by your kids conform to your standards. That is simply because you want to control their "choices" completely so that you can force your world-view onto them and to be the ultimate authority in their lives.

So you can stop all that bullshit about "choice", what you really want is Taliban-style Sharia Law, because that is the only way you can prevent your children from ever being exposed to random imagery with sexual connotations.

I'm sorry you disagree, but its been long established that businesses can enforce no photography rules.

Where?

Has the Supreme Court ruled on it? I don't think so. The fact that a demand is commonly made and enforced and even if the sheepish public goes along with it does not mean that it is lawful.

Any court challenge would quickly show that such a ban not only violates the Charter but it would also be unenforceable since the definition of a "camera" now includes cell phones, key-chain ornaments and other hidden pin-hole cameras. Validation of such arbitrary rule making would simply allow an end-run against prohibition against racial discrimination - all that a racist mall owner had to do would be to selectively enforce the rule on Black cell-phone owners, which today would mean nearly 100% of Black customers, and to use an excuse of "we didn't see anyone else taking pictures".

They cannot search your bag without consent, though they can ask you to leave and call the police.

That is indeed their right but if they do so for something that is protected in the Charter, you have the recourse of suing them for it. The fact that very, very few people know about it and even fewer will sue is what makes the mall owners feel that they can get away with nearly anything. Wide-spread success of mall and stadium owners in mass violations of their customer rights without any visible repercussions is what makes you believe their propaganda and what makes you so adamant in your efforts to give up even more of your rights and to ultimately enshrine these very violations as a de-facto law.

they can certainly ban photography - its entirely legal to do so. They can also ban protests, etc.

Err ... No.

Protests can be banned only if they "directly interfere with the conduct of business", which is why abortion clinics cannot get rid of people staging protests right in front but they can ensure that the protesters do not block access. This is also why protesters cannot protest inside because doing so would prevent the clinic from conducting business. There are also exceptions dealing with disturbing other patrons, which is why malls can ban drunks, pan-handlers and barefoot people from entering, but there specific limits as to what can be put in this category.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you have a right to do it in my house, place of business, etc.

Shopping malls, train stations etc are not just "places of business". Nor are they "your home". Their legal status is that of "public facility" and different rules apply than, say, in your home. You are for example quite allowed to be a complete racist and have no Asians on your "approved visitors" list in your home, which is not true for a store-front, never you mind a shopping mall or a stadium.

Businesses of course do all sorts of things that are going far beyond their rights, like for example football stadiums rifling through your possessions and refusing entry if you carry a professional camera or a pop drink that their overpriced vendors sell, but they do these things only because no one has sued their asses off for violations of the Charter yet (which is just a matter of time - lawsuits are very slooow).

I'm inclined to believe that's typically an "or" rather than an "and".

Well, that is a matter of grammatical debate. Imagine you have a mixed set S of items A and B. In the set A has a property PA and B has a property PB. So when you refer to the set, you can say "Items in S have properties PA and PB" (without distinction of which member has which, just simple enumeration of properties) or "Items in S have property PA or property PB" (which specifically offers additional information on mutual exclusivity of PA and PB). Both are correct.

... and it's supposed to be a free country.

I think you are confusing the sales brochure with the actual product.

American "freedom" is just a sales pitch, although a very successful one. Reality however never quite matched it, even in the long-past heyday of US personal liberties. It is just that only now, when the US is so far down the police-state rabbit hole, that the disparity has finally become too great even for the average members of the "general population" to ignore. Before that, the populace was very easy to brainwash and control via mass media and a few empty slogans. It still works, but the cognitive dissonance required for the propaganda to work is becoming so great as to make the traditional social engineering techniques ineffective.

Yes, but the metaphor only works if gravity is supplied by a private enterprise gravity service provider.

Actually, in this case I was referring to the sexual drive of adolescents, not to the ISP's silly filtering scheme.

The GP insinuated that his "opt-in" can result in him being able to somehow control his kids' sexuality, which is what prompted me to make this comparison.