I was reading the local newspaper today on my lunch break (The Stillwater Gazette, June 29 issue) and was interested to see the front page headline of a Marine on St Croix man arrested for possessing child pornography. This town is just 10-15 miles north of where I live, so I naturally was curious about the incident. I was somewhat surprised as I read further.

"The charge stems from a Nov.12 incident in which P****n allegedly uploaded a picture onto his computer of a nude 13-15-year-old girl performing a sexual act. The Internet service provider America Online noted the incident and alerted the national Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which confirmed the incident and documented it as a cyber tip on Nov.17."

I have no problem with this person being arrested, since it turns out he had approximately 50 assorted pictures on his hard drive of children of a sexual nature. However, I do have questions about the role of the internet provider as government lapdog, tipping off assorted authorities to conduct online. This simply reeks of Big Brother, and I do not mean Vahlen.:rolleyes:

Any thoughts on whether they should be taking on this role, or if it is an invasion of your privacy? Is it covered in the user agreement?

My initial thought is, "How did they uncover the photo?" If attachments entitled "hot-kiddie-ass.jpg" produce red flags through automatic procedures, I might be okay with it. But if our e-mail is sifted through like random travelers at an airport gate, I'd find it objectionable.

AOL has never been the most privacy-conscious ISP. I bet they heavily litter their users' PCs with all sorts of spybots and adware.

...allegedly uploaded a picture onto his computer of a nude 13-15-year-old girl performing a sexual act.

Wait, by "uploaded a picture onto his computer" did they mean like from an external device? Uploaded from where? It almost doesn't sound internet-related, that or the writer of the article didn't know what he/she is talking about.

When you "upload onto your computer" you probably mean "downloaded to your computer".

It's all relative.

When you "upload onto your computer" you probably mean "downloaded to your computer".

It's all relative.

That was a direct quote from the newspaper. I am assuming they meant downloaded.

I understand that. But there did seem to be some confusion about what he did.

In short, he looked at the wrong picture.

It's a wierd area - hard to call it big brotherish when you consider what you're doing. Really, your ISP has access to anything you do online already, so you could make a good argument that they were being good citizens by alerting the feds.

I usually assume everything I do online is visible and recorded. Not overly fond of having to think that way, but I also fall into that category of people that figure if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about it. A recent article showed high statistics of companies that supposedly read employee email and directly monitor web activity, so it's not just your ISP out to get you.

I think the best solution to big brother situations is to raise public awareness, so people at least are aware of the amount of time they are really monitored. I worked for a little while with a group that was focused on survellience cameras - their goal was simply to make people realize how often they were on tape. If anyone is really interested I'll see if I can hunt down the statistics, kinda creepy.

But you know...as long as you're behaving nicely and all that...

Well all you have to do is click the wrong popup and you instantly have a cache full of porn pics.

As has been stated, it's all relative.

but I also fall into that category of people that figure if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about it.

this sounds like how our government is now, Freedom of Speech, just watch what you say

On topic : no
relevant : Yes!
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm
and.....
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

this sounds like how our government is now, Freedom of Speech, just watch what you say Oooh, very different. Don't get me started - very pro-freedom of speech.

Now, tie freedom of speech restrictions to survellience and big brother for the grand prize.

I am a big fan of privacy, but if this helps to catch pedophiles, I am all for it.

X2 For Selwen...

Besdies there is no such things as total freedom of speech.

I am a big fan of privacy, but if this helps to catch pedophiles, I am all for it.
Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

As a registered Libertarian (http://www.lp.org/), I'm forced to beat you over the head with a copy of the constition (or at least the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to it) and then smack you silly with the bill of rights.


The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=141&invol=250#251)(1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=394&invol=557#564)(1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=392&invol=1#8)-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=347#350)(1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=116&invol=616)(1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438#478)(1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=381&page=484#484)-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=262&invol=390#399)(1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=302&invol=319#325)(1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=388&invol=1#12)(1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541)-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=405&page=453#453)-454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=321&invol=158#166)(1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=510#535)(1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

Oddly, Roe v. Wade is a huge landmark case for privacy as well as women's rights. You should read the actual text of Roe if you haven't. Facinating stuff.

Look, I've got a four year old daughter. In a locked room with a pedophile, it'd be like Thunderdome -- Two men enter! One man leave! ...but I'm not about to have the one-way mirrors installed in everyone's houses just yet. I mean, if you're not doing anything wrong, there's no harm in them looking, right?