Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
Seriously, your daughter has flown down to Dunedin, without your knowledge, broken into my house, done to my (21 month) daughter's room, and stolen her jersey. Exactly the same.
Either that, or you stole my daughter, took her to the zoo, took photos, and altered them a little digitally to give her more hair and make her face look different.
-
The Mighty Boosh: like being caressed by natural yoghurt.
How does one know how that feels? Er, no wait, I don't want to know.
-
Note the aside in the NY Times article about the sledding doctor who sued the city over a broken ankle -- what a dick!
You really wish a judge/jury would just say "You broke your leg during an accident, doing something in which accidents sometimes happen. You'll get medical costs, and that's it. Stop being an arsehole and trying to set yourself up for life because you had an accident."
-
Man, the search ratings for this thread are going to go through the roof now.
It's like Craig just got 100 random people to put money in a coin slot for Russell's benefit :)
-
So, if we have a big problem and limited resources, would it be acceptable to decide to devote your energies to the higher-harm end of the problem? Genuinely asking here. Because I get the feeling Fletcher was raided on the basis of 'ease of target' rather than 'degree of harm' - which I guess is another way to deal with the problem, to chase after people you think you can nail.
Yes, that may form part of the consideration. Or they may just being lazy and looking to improve their prosecution record for 'child sexual offenders' so they can run for an AG post or something.
-
I'm sure Graeme Edgeler could elaborate.
I like how as soon as a legal question comes up, we all mention Graeme. He needs some sort of txt alert system. "Legal question raised in PAS 1.04PM by Steve Barnes"
Or maybe some modified version of the bat signal, casting the shadow of a silly looking wig or something. Or, I hesitate to suggest, an ambulance driving across the clouds for him to follow?
-
It's like playing Whack-a-mole with one hammer and a board the size of Scunthorpe.
I don't mind if 'we' stop investigating stuff because we consider it's not harmful, OK, not important etc. Maybe the woman you've written about falls into one of those categories.
But 'big in scope'?
I'd much rather have the NZ police contributing internationally to catching 1/3 of the people making and distributing child pornography (for example), rather than throwing their hands up and saying "the internet is too big".
If they were getting absolutely nowhere, and it was impossible, OK, that's a waste of resources. But I don't think they've found the internet to turn out that way. Difficult, but still important to engage for enforcement.
-
I do think the 'physical location of the server' rule is patently ridiculous, when the group may not include anyone who lives in that community. I'm also really impressed by the way net communities regulate themselves - they settle around a line of what's acceptable for that group and hold there remarkably well. I'm not saying 'I passionately believe the internet should be unregulated', I am saying "I can't see how you can do that in a way that's both effective and fair".
I can't see another way to deal with it, and I'm not sure if it's unfair at all.
If I have something illegal on my computer, and then upload it to a server in the states, and use that server to distribute it, then the information is being stored both here in NZ (on my computer), and in the USA (on the server).
It may also have passed through a couple of other countries on the way, but that's not so important.
Both my computer, and the server, are in possession of illegal material. I'm responsible for my computer, the illegality of the material on the server is either my problem, or the host of the server, or both. If they made every effort to remove the material as soon as they became aware of it, they probably don't have a problem. NZ laws apply to me, US laws apply to them.
We need to apply laws to the internet and the actions of people on it. It's not at all easy to do, because for hundreds of years our laws have been based on physical location, states, jurisdictions etc.
The fact that it's difficult doesn't mean that we shouldn't try however.
-
but now they tend to roll out thick and fast like elephant turds.
Heh. That's now my online image of the week.
-
You don't feel any particular concern that there are moves afoot to prosecute people for obscenity based on what they write and post on the internet in password-protected groups? No matter what you think of the content - and it would certainly trip my squick-meter - it's the principle that is at stake here.
I don't think that's a principle you could argue for. At least the password protected groups. Just because it's only open to a select group of individuals and not openly published, doesn't make it not of concern.
The concern should always be in the content. Actual child pornography doesn't get openly posted around the net (as far as I'm aware), but I hope we crush like a loathsome bug any password protected sites that are involved in moving it around.