[gambiting]

I also agree that merely looking at things shouldn't be illegal, no matter how offensive or disturbing the content is. After all, we wouldn't arrest someone for reading a book, and there are some pretty fucked up books out there. So why is it different with the internet?

[yellowapple]

In the case of child porn, the typical argument is that even downloading/viewing/possessing it exploits the victim(s).

Personally, I'd prefer the law enforcement emphasis to stay on those creating/buying/selling/distributing child porn, but oh well.

[loup-vaillant]

The idea is, if there is demand, there will be offer to match it. War on Drugs all over again. And now with ads, merely watching videos on YouTube makes one an actor in the economy around this kind of videos.

As for child porn, I bet a good chunk (most?) of the content is directly paid. Such transactions do encourage the corresponding offer. This works for regular online stores, so it most likely work for child porn as well.

Now if the downloading or hoarding of the data doesn't imply any direct or indirect transaction to the benefit of the provider… that probably doesn't help exploitation one bit. But you have to be careful not to perform or facilitate such transactions —or just stay the hell away.

[hutzlibu]

"As for child porn, I bet a good chunk (most?) of the content is directly paid."

What I allways heard in this debate (from privacy activists) is, that most of the stuff is actually shared noncomercial in closed circels. And to get into such a circle you would have to provide them with fresh material (made by yourself).

But on a quick check, I could not find reliable numbers(or those claims), but I guess they would be hard to get in the first place.

Anyhow, I agree that total surveillance would for sure reduce horrible crimes ... But I rather have privacy and police focused on the actual crimes happening.

And the actual crime in this case is the production. And even though it does might lower the barriers for some if they can savely pay/consume for CP, and therefore increase production, I can imagine the danger is a kick for others as well.

And even if we could manage to ban all CP from the internet, then those people might want to get their kicks then in real life.

Anyhow, I think that is where society has to focus on - the actual fucked up people. And there are plenty of them around and they won't go away, because you lock them off from their sick internet kicks.

But on the other hand, yes, it might be easier for police etc. to keep track of them, if they are not anonymus. Unfortunately I think that most people wanting to eliminate privacy don't care at all about the children, but rather want plain power.

And there are good reasons to not trust governments who wants to know everything about the people but not wanting the people to know about what they are doing ...

I mean, we are even talking about russia here. Would you trust them?

[loup-vaillant]

Again, I'm going to use the War on Drug. They cracked down on users, and it plain didn't work. Do reduce drug demand, you want to help users, not put them in jail. And also help unhappy people in general —in practical terms, this often means helping poor people, that is, having a functioning welfare system.

Child porn may be similar. I don't know.

And of course total surveillance is too high a price to pay. I'd rather have some more child abuse and some more "terrorism" and a little bit more crime, if that's the price we have to pay for privacy (and I'm not even sure we do). As much as I don't like horrible stuff happening, total surveillance is much worse —if only because of the sheer number and comprehensiveness of the effects. I'll take torture over dust speck¹.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/kn/torture_vs_dust_specks/

[hutzlibu]

I guess we agree on the main topic, I just want to point out, in case you ever want to go into politics, or some other public position ... never phrase a sentence like that:

"I'd rather have some more child abuse "

media would lynch you cheeringly and totaly ignoring everything after. Kind of a sad world we are living in, though ...

[seanp2k2]

The internet is faster and more accessible than publishing a book, which makes government critters anxious that people will use it to spread controversial ideas and eventually take down the establishment.

[loup-vaillant]

> and eventually take down the establishment.

That last one is kinda inevitable. The internet, even the spied centralised version we see at Facebook and Gmail, has a flattening effect: for the first time in recorded History, people can write. And other people respond to them. Even the printing press failed to achieve that —mostly.

Sure, there are bubbles and such, but there no escaping the fact that public forums train people in public debates. This will have a political effect.

Now I can only hope the transition will not be too bloody.

[hutzlibu]

> and eventually take down the establishment.

>> That last one is kinda inevitable.

It allways is and was. Happened allready many times, it is called human history ;)