chat room police

[cellar_door]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/09/police_chat_rooms/

now i understand the whole kiddy fidler side of it and that if you aint doing anything wrong there isnt anything to worry about but its the whole lack of privicy that i dont like, if they said that the police were going to monitor your phone calls there would be a national outcry

what you guys think

[Splinter]

I think this is an okay idea actually. What irritates me isn't the fact that the police may well start infinging on our privacy like this, but the fact that some idiots have taken advantage of the opportunities they've been given and abused them, which have made them worse for all of us. But if it catches sex offenders and paedophiles, or better still, puts them off, its a good thing.

But of course, theres always the danger that they'll simply force the criminals to use other means, ratehr than stopping them entirely.

[Osterbaum]

First I thought this was someting just in the US, but then saw it sai 'around the world'. I really don't think this is a good idea. It will just force the criminals to use other means, and then it will take the police a longer time to find out and learn about their new way.

[Viper Daimao]

chat room? are we talking about irc here? the question is i think, how is this different than what they can do now? the chats are public places right? how can you keep a person out, be he cop or regular joe, or IRCOP? cant IRCOPS do this already?

[Osterbaum]

Offcourse you can't keep cops put as persons, but if they are on the job it's a different thing. If this helps the catching of pedophiles though and doesent cause much other problems, I'm all for it.

[Viper Daimao]

how would it be different if they were on the job? seriously, if a cop "as a person" sees pedofilia or some other iliegal activity going on, would he not then report it? and then become "on the job"?

[Sithdarth]

The US government, with a few other countries I think, monitors every form of communication via two large banks of computers. All communications able to be intercepted, which is most of them even hard line phone calls, are routed through these and any one found to have a keyword is tagged and recorded. If the government can do this with public knowledge of it than the police should have no trouble monitoring chat rooms. I have no problem with it either. I doubt they will go chasing down people that talk about doing slightly illegal things. Besides most of the attention will be focused on chat rooms where kids go to talk. Most of us here shouldn't really be interested in chatrooms that were designed for and filled with kids in their lower teens and below. I know we have a few young ones here but the majority are hovering around the higher teens. People that don't get targeted by pedaphiles. So any chat room most people here would find interesting would be effected little or not at all.

[cellar_door]

no privicy? a war to keep people in? line looks like orwell was only twenty years out.

yeah i know thats melodramatic but i do keep seeing paralels between that book and whats going on.

its a great book though aint it gotta be the second best written

[Drakolan]

9/11 brought us the Homeland Security Office, which is so much like the Thought Police that Orwell needs to be hailed as a prophet.

[The Devil Himself]

Personally, I can't help but feel a little sorry for the police, since they'll be wading through millions of undecipherable 1337 speak to try to catch a terrorist.

[Osterbaum]

how would it be different if they were on the job? seriously, if a cop "as a person" sees pedofilia or some other iliegal activity going on, would he not then report it? and then become "on the job"?

He would report it as a civilian if he would at all. And as I said, I'm quite ok with this IF something good really comes out of it.

[Splinter]

hmm, same here. It depends how well its implemented, and whether or not it can be shown to have any impact on internet crime.

[Illuminatus]

I have a question that is vaguely on topic:

Say a cyber-cop tries to catch a pedophile. If he pretends to be a underage girl, sets up a meeting and entices the criminal to come, isn't that entrapment? Or am I wrong...

[Viper Daimao]

i believe that could be considered entrapment, and because of that, its not how its done. cops have been catching people like in private meetings set up in chat rooms for years. they've been posing as prostitutes to catch guys for decades. they know how to not entrap the would be criminal.

[Crodevillian Team]

Say a cyber-cop tries to catch a pedophile. If he pretends to be a underage girl, sets up a meeting and entices the criminal to come, isn't that entrapment? Or am I wrong...

It can only be considered entrapment if the individual was persuaded to commit a crime that they had no previous intent to do.

If the officers merely provide circumstances that would -allow- the person to commit a crime, it is not entrapment. If the person actually makes the effort to meet the agent, then it cannot be considered entrapment because the person obviously was not baited to do something against their will.

Here; I'm not good at summaries. Here's a better definition. (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm)

[cellar_door]

under what law would it be done because remember as we all know thanks to that absolutely shit film of zeta-jones and connery entrapment is perfectly ok in the uk

[Osterbaum]

Its ok here atleast.

[h4x.m4g3]

Monitor this *gives the government the digital finger* ok I just needed to get that out of my system

for the thing about entrapment, I believe in order to catch the suspect lawfully, the pedaphile would have to be the one to suggest meeting somplace i.e. the cop can't say "Wanna come over and have some fun ; )" .

I think monitoring for Pedaphiles and the like is a good ideal, don't get me wrong, but I just don't like the ideal of being watched...hehehe....no I haven't done anything wrong...or planned to... yet

[Omega Mage Zero]

Children need to be protected from predators, few would argue that. But there is quite a bit of hysteria over child abuse that is enabling the government(s) to do things we wouldn't stand for otherwise and we may regret later. The same is true of terrorism. I think the government (US anyway) already monitors chat rooms, message boards, and sites at will. The "Wild West" days of the internet are ending.

I also hate the assumption that only people with something to hide are against it.

[Osterbaum]

I also hate the assumption that only people with something to hide are against it.

Cause it's totally false. People are not pedophiles or terrorists if they don't want this to hapen. Thats just ridicolous. Most people just see this as a thing that won't really of any use and would only hurt their private life. Even if this works it could be expanded to a much larger scale tan just monitoring pedophiles. Think about piratism for example. How many people would have to suffer for some stupid little violatns of the copyright laws? What about all other so called 'smaller' crimes?

[Jagos]

well, when you gotta pay 150,000 bucks for copyright infringement of a $10 song it does get kinda rediculous.

I for one love my privacy. The only thing I have is... well, nothing really. Except abuse of station. Which is basically what a few people do when they're given free reign over parts of the world. Er... the US thru BS laws.

[cellar_door]

do we actualy have a right to privicy though?

[Viper Daimao]

the whole right to privacy thing is open to debate. I like to think we do, but its not explict in the constitution. but a right to privacy in public places(like the internet, outside, ect)? no not really. Already in Engalnd I think, and probably other European countries, they have cameras in public places like streets and parks that police monitor.
when you mention police monitoring chat rooms and message boards, how is that infringing on rights? look, im monitoring this message board right now, i can go and monitor the 8bit chat. if you want private, perhaps the internet isnt for you.

[Jagos]

Well... privacy without being prosecuted is really all most people are looking for. 'Sides where do you draw the line on the use of a camera? Or abuses of power? Losing time to go to work cuz you look suspicious?

[cellar_door]

i suppose there is a bit of vanity in thinking that a policeman is realy gonna give a fuck about whatever we're shitting on about but it does just feel a bit wrong

[Cheerful Coffin]

A waste of time in my opinion. Pedophiles kidnap children off the street, abusers know the victim personally, and terrorists are busy building and setting coordinance for places to bomb. The badguys are busy living thier badguy lives. Which among these fiends is so loserish that they have to resort to chatrooms as a means of spreading thier destructive seed?

Not to advocate any of those types, I think they're sick and twisted people that should be given hell on Earth, but I can't immagine a real terrorist wasting his time online spamming chatrooms with banners of how bU5h 5uCk0rZ.

[adamark]

I think it's a massive waste of time, energy, and TAXES. Why can't parents just be smart and monitor their childrens' internet use to make sure they aren't being suckered in by a pedophile? That would be a lot easier. But of course, parents are stupid, so we have to get the police and FBI involved to save the kids.

As someone already mentioned, just about every electronic communication is already monitored, but because of the U.S. constitution which doesn't allow the government to spy on citizens, the CIA cut a deal with the UK. basically, the UK spies on Americans with their echelon technology and hands over the data to the CIA/FBI. Meanwhile, America spies on the UK with its own echelon technology and hands that data over to MI6 or Scotlant Yard or whatever they have over there... :)

There is a very fine line when it comes to entrapment. But if they have the chat records and have numerous documentation of what sites a suspected pervert is visiting, if he says he had no intention.... they will take a police officer's word over that of a private citizen.

I believe in what someone said about the "Wild West" days ending for the internet. I've always said that the internet is the last widely accessible frontier, and it is being fenced off little by little by the government. Right now we can still steal music and there is very little police presence here, this could be totally changed in 10 years. There might be much tighter systems, langauge violation laws, government spy programs that hack your computer. Hell, they are sitting up on capitol hill desperately trying to figure out a way to tax the internet. The US Postal Service tried to pass a bill to require Americans to PAY FOR EMAIL as if it were real mail.

[Sithdarth]

You can't really compare the internet to a public place. It is very different than anyplace humans have ever known. It's a way to reach billions of people with your opions without revealing who you are. It's a way of being publicaly private. I believe a whole new concept of privacy has to come into being before we can judge any expectations of it on the internet. Yes you but your ideal and opions out there for the public on the internet. However, most of the time, you expect your true identy to remain unknown. To destroy this aspect is to destroy what the internet is and one of the major reasons for it's unbrideled succcess. They're not just monitoring they're changing the entire climate and nature of the place. Serious consideration should be given to the possible effects of this before any large scale action is taken.

[hawkboy204]

A waste of time in my opinion. Pedophiles kidnap children off the street, abusers know the victim personally, and terrorists are busy building and setting coordinance for places to bomb. The badguys are busy living thier badguy lives. Which among these fiends is so loserish that they have to resort to chatrooms as a means of spreading thier destructive seed?

While that stuff is mostly true, the internet provides another way for pedophiles to find kids, but i dont know the numbers of people that use the internet vs those that know the kids personally. As for terrorists using it, it allows for faster communication, but it would probably be hard for police to catch any terrorist.

[adamark]

You can't really compare the internet to a public place. It is very different than anyplace humans have ever known. It's a way to reach billions of people with your opions without revealing who you are. It's a way of being publicaly private. I believe a whole new concept of privacy has to come into being before we can judge any expectations of it on the internet. Yes you but your ideal and opions out there for the public on the internet. However, most of the time, you expect your true identy to remain unknown. To destroy this aspect is to destroy what the internet is and one of the major reasons for it's unbrideled succcess. They're not just monitoring they're changing the entire climate and nature of the place. Serious consideration should be given to the possible effects of this before any large scale action is taken.

You're probably right. They will ruin the internet. And they don't even care. (The) People will have to find a new frontier...

[Lockeownzj00]

spamming chatrooms with banners of how bU5h 5uCk0rZ.

Why would a pedophile do this? Why would ANYONE spam a chatroom about an already apparent fact?

Yes, viper, you are monitoring us. But you are not a government official, and you can not decide we are doing the wrong thing and 'take us in' so to speak. This is just one step closer to Telescreens. They already monitor everything else we do. The FCC ordered that all programs have backdoors that it good use, just a little while ago.

What's next? There is such a thing as privacy and it needs to be preserved. This is the same reason the PATRIOT Act is wrong. The difference between me looking at and monitoring everyone and a camera/cop doing so, is that, like I said, one has power, and the other doesn't. You'd get mad at someone quote unquote eavesdropping, wouldnt you? This is just legal eavesdropping. Oh sure, they're not supposed to care, but I doubt a human couldn't.

Although, I'm not sure how effective this will be. How many chatting programs are there? Thousands, I'd say. They'd probably hit the most prominent child molestation venue--AIM--first. That's assuming this even works. Next thing you know IRC is monitored 24/7 and piracy as we know it is dead (i'm scaring myself now).

Well, they're already eliminating porn. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Thaumaturge]

While I understand the problem, I am very uncomfortable with governmental monitoring of my communications. I agree with SithDarth: Tampering in this way is dangerous to the climate of the 'net.

I don't have a problem with cameras in public places; we have them in our CBD, and that's fine. The 'net is a more private, and, in some ways, more personal medium. It's a little like a government installing video and audio surveillance devices in my home, but (given the relatively anonymous nature of the 'net) not knowing who I am unless they specifically research me. It's still wrong.

The difference between this and moderators such as Viper is that I joined up knowing and accepting that there would be moderation. The space is still by and large private, it's just (as SithDarth said) publically private. It's like a meeting room, on private property, although non-members are allowed to listen. Even though people can listen, the authorities still should not be able to surveil the room.

I know that I'm rambling a bit here, but it's a little difficult to express my feelings succinctly on this.

[Inbred Chocobo]

What is there to do if they start up this monitering of the internet, how will they be able to do it. Also, is these predators are so bent on preying children, they should easily be able to avoid any and all survelence. I seriously think this is a bad idea, i feel as if this plan is just going to flop, and only catch the very stupid predators.

[Lansatac]

Sithdarth said:
The US government, with a few other countries I think, monitors every form of communication via two large banks of computers. All communications able to be intercepted, which is most of them even hard line phone calls, are routed through these and any one found to have a keyword is tagged and recorded.

This is interesting, do you have proof?
It would be a blatent violation of the constitution.

[Lansatac]

Lockeownzj00 said:
Well, they're already eliminating porn. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I think its a good thing to crack down on child porn, but I'd LOVE to see some right wing group(excuse the politics) try to censor porn comletely. There isnt a man alive who doesn't enjoy it and i think the retaliation against such a movement would be amusing.

[Sithdarth]

This is interesting, do you have proof?
It would be a blatent violation of the constitution.
I forget the name but it is true. Not everything is recorded though. Computers monitor the trasmissions and tag/ record things with certain keywords. The trick is that the US monitors other countries and then we have one of those other countries monitor us and swap the data. That way both countries get around privacy concerns.

[Lansatac]

I forget the name but it is true. Not everything is recorded though. Computers monitor the trasmissions and tag/ record things with certain keywords. The trick is that the US monitors other countries and then we have one of those other countries monitor us and swap the data. That way both countries get around privacy concerns.Again, do you have proof?
I'd be interested in seeing it, but it sounds very suspicius to me.
It seems to be just anouther crackpot's conspiracy theory.

[Sithdarth]

It's called Echelon and you don't have to take my word for it any more. Here (http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm) is an explination straight from a government website. Even though the concept of Echelon seems like the ravings of a conspiracy theroist it is pretty much fact. The scary part is that if the government is willing to tell us all this then what are they hiding.

[Lansatac]

I just saw the echelon web site...
I think I'll just not use the phone and pretend I never saw it.