If the difference between an adult human being and a child eludes you, then perhaps you need to pay a visit to your doctor. Most concerns are rightfully about very young children and not about weather some porn actress really is 18 or 17.

Now, anti-CP laws can get pretty silly, so much is true. I remember a story about a 16 years old boy getting arested for CP possession, because he had naked pictures of his 15 years old girlfriend. And don't get me started on that idiotic judge who concluded that possessing drawn images depicting children was the same crime as actual CP.

You are not looking the act of possession under the right angle through. We've all seen how well anti-drug laws work when only selling them is illegal. If the legal status of CP changes, this will encourage underground rings to produce it (since their "customers" will not be scared of purchasing it) which in turn will increase the number of children exploited. There are many stupid censorship laws that get day to day coverage, but CP has real victims and as such the current system is working as intended. As far as victumless drawn art goes, I don't see why moralfags make such a big deal of it.

We can never purge pedophiles from the dark corners of the Internet, but as long as they keep themselves underground in the various darknets, nobody will make money off it, and it will remain something that only the truely interested and somewhat tech savvy can find. Which is fine, since you can't stop these people, unless government spyware comes preinstalled within the BIOS of every single PC in the world.

Fully autonomous robots, while moderately dangerous are likely to remain more of a novelty weapon for the next 100 years.

It took 30 years of AI development in computer simulations, and even today, fully unrestricted AI is still far from being equal to human intellect. In modern computer games, the AI has to usually "cheat" by giving it inaccessible to players resources and abilities in order to put up a good fight. FPS AI can see through walls (even if it pretends not to), it can calculate exactly how to shoot in order to hit you, and moves using an idealistic predefined pathing map that tells it where to go, and where not to go. RTS AI can see the entire map and gets more resources/units than human players. Even the best chess computer in the world hasn't been able to beat the best human at it.

Remove all the little cheats and you will have a dumb looking free kill that keeps running in the wall and shooting itself in the foot.
Translated into the real world, robots will be more likely to fall off a cliff than shoot the enemy.

Furthermore, there is not a single algorithm that can efficiently and quickly evaluate the surrounding terrain, let alone identify objects and meatbags to shoot at.

Today's AI would be no more useful than sentry guns with motion sensors. And these things don't exactly distinguish between soldiers and civilians. Or random moving crap that gets in the way.

I am far more concerned with these remotely controlled contraptions. Remove the psychological aspect of being in the battlefield and the danger of retaliation and suddenly these "software bugs" would so common, that sendmail will look like the Alcatraz of computer security compared to them.

Hopefully, they won't get some silly acronym name like "Neutralizing Encounter and Recon Danger Resolution Automated Guardian Element 2.0" or we might as well start capturing pokemons for the US army.

Great idea!

*Runs to the patent office*

The Italian government is not the mafia? My view of the world has been shattered!

The Labor Party is the one who proposes and accept the laws, but it's John Doe's duty to go out there and tell them to fuck off when they cross the line.

I don't see any protests on the British streets, so why should I assume the populace disagrees with it's government?

Let's face it - people don't care. Humans act pretty much like a huge herd of sheep. Democracy would be a great form of government if everyone was idealist like the people who wrote our constitutions, but the truth is that most people would rather not go out of their comfort zone to make any significant impact on their lives, even if it means to give up some things.

It's ironic but if the government were to ban some form of entertainment... say nicotine drugs and alcohol, it would cause mass riots. But when the government installs cameras everywhere to look for uhh.... terrorists John thinks to himself "why should I care? I'm not terrorist". If shutting down your critical thinking to blend in the crowd doesn't qualify as "letting it happen", then I don't know what is. Politicians have shown us time after time that elections != exercising your will.