Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Businesses Google The Internet Your Rights Online

Google Caught On Private Property 668

Posted by timothy
from the dude-that-is-so-not-cool dept.
nathan halverson writes "Google recently launched Street View coverage in Sonoma and Mendocino counties — big pot growing counties. And while they hardly covered the area's biggest city, Santa Rosa, they canvassed many of the rural areas known for growing pot. I found at least one instance where they drove well onto private property, past a gate and no trespassing sign, and took photographs. I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking, but someone is likely to find some pot plants captured on Street View. That could cause big problems for residents. Because while growing a substantial amount of pot is legal in Mendocino and Sonoma County under state law, it's highly illegal under federal law and would be grounds for a federal raid."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Caught On Private Property

Comments Filter:
  • by gwoodrow (753388) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @04:41PM (#24350821)
    Well that was awfully nice of you to post about it on a prominent website.
  • Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:00PM (#24351025)

    Here's a clue: not all laws are just, and not all laws should be obeyed.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:07PM (#24351113)

    Don't even joke about "no snitching". It's a serious problem because people do not come forward to report crimes or give information. People are constantly exposed to this message through clothes (many varieties of 'no snitchin' shirts, hats) and primarily through rap.

    It may seem funny but people really live in environments where the fear of retaliation for speaking with the police is so strong that they say nothing. The whole "no snitchin'" thing bolsters that message.

    There is nothing funny about unsolved crime and criminals who go free because people are intimidated into not talking.

  • Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tom's a-cold (253195) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:08PM (#24351123) Homepage
    Let's prioritize. Start with dealing with those who are "breaking the fucking law" forbidding wars of aggression and torture. Then let's go after the ones swindling people out of billions. Then smaller-scale violent crime. Once we're done with those problems, maybe we can go after a few granola-munchers growing pot in their backyards, unless by that time the US gets its collective head unwedged and repeals the inane and repressive laws against cannabis.

    Incidentally I'm not a cannabis user or grower. I don't like the high and make my money in other ways. I'm for legalization because it's the right thing to do, not because there's anything in it for me personally.
  • Snitch! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:10PM (#24351139) Journal
    Well, besides the fact that anyone who's got no job, an internet connection and a hankerin' for some weed can just go google-maps-weed-hunting... I think "snitching" is the best form of neighborhood control.

    If someone is doing something that isn't right, and you don't stop them, you're basically helping them do their incorrect business.

    Not that pot is 'evil', but ... all it takes for evil to win, is that good men do nothing.
  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Logic and Reason (952833) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:14PM (#24351183) Homepage

    There is nothing funny about unsolved crime and criminals who go free because people are intimidated into not talking.

    There is when the "crime" in question is essentially gardening.

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:16PM (#24351199) Homepage Journal
    the massive amount the cops are spending is doing nothing to discourage use, and all that really happens is that:
    A: Drug lords can make massive amounts of cash while engaging in very shady practices
    B: People's lives are ruined because they were caught setting small amounts of plants on fire(meanwhile idiots light up massive amounts of the legal plants in giant bonfires are a risk to themselves and others and yet go unpunished)
    C: Massive amounts of tax payer money are wasted chasing the former, and if they find them, even more is wasted putting them in a prison where they are no longer productive to society and branding them with a record that will cost them even more(and probably cause them to go from productive to an even BIGGER burden on society)

    Legalize it for use in homes, but make sure if someone is stupid enough to do it and go out driving that you bust their asses.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:20PM (#24351231)

    "Here is an interesting idea: Don't break the fucking law."

    The one that says you can grow pot or the one that says you can't?

    If your view is that all laws are correct all the time and that none of them should be broken, then please kill yourself now because you offend me.

  • by msauve (701917) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:21PM (#24351243)
    State law takes precedence, according to our Constitution. Unfortunately, our Federal courts are self-serving, and the Feds have bigger guns, so when they say that growing plants in your backyard for your own use is "interstate commerce," no one argues.
  • Re:In other words (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:21PM (#24351247)

    I take it you missed the recent article posted on /. discussing the fallacy of the "why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?" argument. Basically the article pointed out that the argument uses a crappy, narrow definition of "privacy." But I'd like to add a point that the article may not have emphasized enough: somebody's status as a criminal has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether they have a right to privacy. This is an incredibly important part of privacy law. I'd recommend Koestler's "Darkness at Noon" to you because it gives a great demonstration of how that argument can be abused (and how it WAS abused, in Stalinist Russia). If we can justify a breach of privacy by calling someone a criminal, then all we have to do is make a criminal out of everyone whose privacy we'd like to breach.

  • Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by atraintocry (1183485) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:27PM (#24351305)
    It's not black and white, and by treating it as such you risk disingenuousness. In this case there are different laws on the books for the same thing at the municipal, state, and federal level. Why? Because it's a hotly contested issue, which also means that some people feel strongly enough about it to put themselves at risk. Possession of even a decent amount in CA is a civil offense. A parking ticket. You don't have any of those, do you? Are you confident that everything in your house is up to building code?

    Some people don't agree with having penalties for thoughtcrime. Some just think they can get away with it. I realize that laws are not "made to be broken", but those who defended the status quo during Jim Crow or Prohibition became history's losers, and rightly so. Plus, consider again the loss of privacy. I trust the system more than I trust some self-appointed vigilantes with internet access. But if this makes mainstream news, they will be judged and sentenced long before any cop arrives at their place.

    Funny thing about the law: it applies to companies like Google just as well. Their quest to index the universe is at odds with people's right to privacy. Too bad. Find a business model that doesn't involve breaking the law. This is not the first of these stories. They lose the benefit of the doubt. I am left with one conclusion: that there's an unspoken rule for these drivers: "ignore those gates and signs, or we'll replace you with someone who will."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:30PM (#24351333)

    Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.

    No they are not. The courts implement, interpret, and enforce laws. They do NOT have the role of declaring a given law as being unjust. At most, judges can make legal comment with regard to inconsistency of a particular law or other problems of a technical nature. And the dear public sitting in the jury benches has no freedom to comment on the law whatsoever.

    Politicians are of course totally unable to repeal unjust laws. The bribe money is stuffed far too high up their arseholes.

    Which leaves us with public disobediance and concerted pressure on corporates as the only means of "dealing with unjust laws".

  • by dogmatixpsych (786818) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:31PM (#24351345) Homepage Journal
    No, the Federalists wanted the federal government to take precedence. The states' rights advocates wanted state's rights to take precedence. That's why our government is set up how it is - to make sure all parties play nicely with each other.
  • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:32PM (#24351369) Homepage Journal
    "Drugs are social nuisances and cause problems. " If everything that's a "social nuisance" and that causes problems is going to be a crime, there's not a lot left we'll be able to do. Just about EVERYTHING is a nuisance to someone.
  • Re:In other words (Score:3, Insightful)

    by STrinity (723872) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:33PM (#24351373) Homepage
    Generally speaking, things you do behind fences and no trespassing signs in the middle of nowhere aren't "in plain sight."
  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Helios1182 (629010) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:34PM (#24351383)

    So your argument is that people shouldn't drive while high. That seems reasonable, just as people can't drive while drunk. As far as I can tell your argument makes the point that it should be controlled like alcohol, not illegal.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DarkOx (621550) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:34PM (#24351387) Journal

    There is also a huge difference in not snitching because you fell intemidated and not snithcing because you don't want to. You may feel a law is unimportant, unjust, unreasonable, etc and don't feel much sense of civic dubty when it comes to participation in assisting the government with its enforcement.

    The former is a big problem that later not so much.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Free the Cowards (1280296) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:39PM (#24351437)

    I'm as against drunk driving as anyone, and am even more against driving while high, but I am also highly against restrictions on these things while not driving. You should be free to get high on your own time as much as you want, just so long as you don't try to operate deadly machinery while doing it.

    Banning an entire class of substances just because you don't want people driving while under their influence is ridiculous.

  • Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dubl-u (51156) * <[ot.atop] [ta] [2107893252]> on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:45PM (#24351485)

    Dealing with unjust laws is what the courts are for.

    At least in the US, that is 100% wrong. Courts are for interpreting laws and dealing with conflicts, real and apparent, between various layers of the law.

    Dealing with unjust laws is explicitly not part of their remit. A relevant example to this case: someone growing or selling medical marijuana, even when they have a municipal license and are paying all their taxes, may not mention the medical nature of their selling in federal court, because the law in question doesn't excuse that.

    Dealing with unjust laws is the responsibility of the citizenry. And, supposedly, the politicians, but I think they've forgotten.

  • by kjart (941720) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @05:46PM (#24351499)
    That excuse is very weak - when you pay someone to do something, you take responsibility for the things they do to that end. You don't let a company off the hook for poor service because they outsource support to India, and people certainly don't get off the hook if they hire someone to murder someone for them.
  • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @06:05PM (#24351703) Homepage

    Excuse a non American dude here, but if growing pot within the boundaries you describe is legal according to the state, how can it be illegal nationally?

    Which one of the systems has precedence?

    Excellent question. I believe the founding fathers of our country intended state law to take precedence.

    Yeah, feel free to try and explain that to the guys in full swat team gear and automatic rifles.

    I fully agree with you, mind you, but, the powers that be have decided they have the power to decide this, and, well, they have bigass firearms behind them.

  • by Baldrson (78598) * on Saturday July 26, 2008 @06:20PM (#24351819) Homepage Journal
    Because while growing a substantial amount of pot is legal in Mendocino and Sonoma County under state law, it's highly illegal under federal law and would be grounds for a federal raid

    Doesn't the 10th Amendment prohibit such federal laws?

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 4D6963 (933028) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @06:23PM (#24351843)

    That "No Snitchin" movement is particularly stupid, because it's led by rappers and such who have no idea why one shouldn't snitch. Obviously it started as a way to "protect" local organised crime you're involved with and to rely on "street justice" rather than the traditional justice system, yet this silly movement made it into a golden rule that applies to absolutely everything without wondering why.

    Because of such a silly rule, in cases when the witnesses have nothing to fear and that "street justice" will most likely not be given, people avoid witnessing for the sake of their own reputation. Just because they don't want to be "tagged snitch", the movement only amplifying what can make you be tagged a snitch to reach ridiculous proportions. And rappers only join the movement because it adds to their "street credentials", which most need more of, as in rap "street credibility" is something everybody claims to have more than they really do.

    Which really all comes down to machoism/pissing contests from people who live in huge mansions in Connecticut and such. However it's not because something is dramatic that we cannot joke about it. I mean, we joke about all kinds of things that are actually atrocious.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @06:37PM (#24351989)

    Yeah, weed should be legal for the rope and not because pot-heads want it. Very insightful.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Thaelon (250687) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @07:09PM (#24352281)

    Making meth is essentially chemistry.

    Selling drugs is essentially business.

    Planting bombs is essentially engineering.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @07:33PM (#24352473)

    Does google selects the actual streets, or only points a broad area for the driver to cover? If it's the latter then here's the top 10 reasons for the driver starting there:

    1. The driver likes that area the most :))
    2. The driver likes what he sees in that area,
    3. He lives nearby, maybe even owns the **private property** and what's on it,
    4. He has friends nearby,
    5. He has items to pickup there,
    6. The driver is an undercover DEA officer,
    7. No traffic jams in those streets (saves gas),
    8. The driver is a /. editor working for slow weekend news,
    9. Have some other good reason to start by those streets,
    10. It's a google conspiracy.
  • Re:Snitch! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kdemetter (965669) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @07:39PM (#24352543)

    If someone is doing something that isn't right, and you don't stop them, you're basically helping them do their incorrect business.

    Not that pot is 'evil', but ... all it takes for evil to win, is that good men do nothing.

    That would depend on the interpretation of good and bad.

    If people want to take drugs, and ruin their lives,it's their choice , not mine.

    People should take responsibility for their own actions , and not expect society to always clean it up for them.

    I'm not saying there's no problem , but making everyone feel guilty for nothing won't help either.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arminw (717974) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @07:58PM (#24352743)

    ...Banning an entire class of substances....

    is only the beginning. I can see controlling people's behavior, that what they do may be needed, but NOT what they happen to possess. It is so easy to surreptitiously plant some illegal material or object in order to frame someone. People should be held responsible for what they DO, not what they merely HAVE. If some driver has an open bottle of booze in a car they could be tested for alcohol, but not punished for merely having the bottle.

    If someone has some arbitrarily classified, so called illegal weapon in their house, they should not be punished merely for that fact, only if they threaten someone or in some other way DO something harmful with any object. One can beat someone to death with a baseball bat or cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife. Do we declare the ownership of baseball bats or knives illegal? A large fraction, if not the majority of the US prison population is there because they had something that was for mostly arbitrary reason declared to be illegal to merely own, even if they may not have done anything harmful to another.

    Anyone who merely OWNS say a shotgun a quarter inch shorter than some arbitrarily decided length some politicians came up with, can be thrown in prison for simply that. Anyone who grows certain kinds of plants, which the Creator saw fit to put on our planet, can be punished for that. Anyone who simply HAS certain kinds of pictures or information can currently be sent to prison for a long time, regardless of what harm they have actually DONE with those pictures or information.

    It is BEHAVIOR that people may DO with some of these things that should be looked at to see whether society is truly harmed, not whether they merely HAVE something that someone doesn't approve of.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @07:59PM (#24352747)
    Logic and reason have nothing to do with this. Alcohol is accepted more for reasons of tradition than anything else. In other cultures, alcohol is considered contraband and drugs that we consider "unacceptable" are commonplace.
  • Re:Snitch! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nursie (632944) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @08:03PM (#24352779)

    Ah yes, that lovely old fallacy, everyone that smokes pot ruins their life in doing so.

    Just like everyone that ever had a beer is a hopeless drunk and lives in a gutter.

  • by Courageous (228506) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:25PM (#24353505)

    Federal law on this point preempts (trumps, overrules) state law on this point, thanks to the federal constitution.

    What part of "enumerated powers" as well as the 10th amendment (sort of a "we really meant it!" amendment) do you not understand? Why not actually try reading your Constitution. Powers are only assigned to the Federal government by enumeration in the Constitution (expressly), otherwise powers are held by the States or the People. See the 10th.

    C//

  • Re:Snitch! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nursie (632944) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:47PM (#24353653)

    Oh I agree, I just didn't like the guy's blanket "Drugs will automatically ruin your life" thing.

    I also don't like the term "drugs" because it covers an enormous range of effects, harms, dependencies and substances legal and illegal.

    Point 2 is a stronger point, but point 1 is pretty strong too, especially when (as you say) so many politicians have admitted to use of pot, or stronger substances.

    These admissions are usually followed by "in my youth, it was a mistake, no we're not going to legalise it", which seems to me the worst sort of hypocrisy:

    "I was alright, but you still need to go to jail for this"

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shoemilk (1008173) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @09:48PM (#24353661) Journal
    Couple of things:

    1. Yes, people should not drive while attending collage. An ex-girlfriend's roommate did once. She'd stay awake the night before studying for an exam, wound up falling asleep at the wheel and rolled her SUV, killing her boyfriend. (This IS a true). So, following your logic, college, or at least exams, should be illegal. That being said, I am for pro-legalization, but allowing people to drive while high should not be legal.

    2. First, I loathe tobacco. However, you're a moron. "These days"?!? Try 15 years ago you couldn't sit in a restaurant without some asshole's cigarette smoke killing the flavor of your food. I'm only 28 but I can still remember smoking "sections" on airplanes. However, walking through that smoke will not get you the buzz that the person actually smoking the cigarette is getting. What's that? You get a buzz from smoking a cigarette? Yes, you do. People don't just do it for fashion, you know. You can't get high just walking through a puff of smoke. Alcohol is legal. Do you think all bus drivers are drunk?

    3. No one said that making pot legal would me a plethora of people smoking in a parking lot. You could make Amsterdam style coffee shops. Legal only on personal property, etc. Legal != presence everywhere
  • Re:Snitch! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Deadstick (535032) on Saturday July 26, 2008 @10:26PM (#24353911)
    Or does it necessarily follow that people who take their drugs inevitably "ruin their lives"?

    They don't always...but then the government does it for them.

    rj

  • Re:Snitch! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26, 2008 @11:52PM (#24354553)

    How about the other argument against drug bans: that banning the drug creates more harm than it removes. A major harm caused by banning drugs is that producing those drugs becomes a criminal activity, and so naturally criminals take over that activity. Another problem is that banning drugs causes the price of the drugs to go up dramatically. This makes drug users spend more of their money on drugs. The money goes to the criminals producing, importing, and selling the drugs. These criminals don't pay tax on their income, and use their money to protect their business, by corrupting law makers and law enforcers.

    This is a major harm to society caused by banning drugs. Criminals can now get lots of money without much effort, or much risk. If the drugs were legal, the price would be much lower, and the money would go to legitimate businesses. Think about that, by banning drugs, we make criminals rich and powerful.

  • Re:Drug Bans (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 (626475) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @12:18AM (#24354719) Homepage Journal
    "A drug ban would only work if every single psychoactive substance was banned. I think that pot is less harmful that booze, and that heroin is less harmful that cocaine."

    Did you get those last two mixed up in order? I think heroin is MUCH worse than cocaine, at least from an addiction point.

    Most people I know never got hooked on cocaine, but, I think most people that try heroin once or twice have a VERY good chance on getting hooked.

    Out of all the people I've known that did coke...only two I ever met developed a problem, and both of them kicked it...only one of those really had any difficulty kicking it.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 (626475) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @12:28AM (#24354781) Homepage Journal
    "2. First, I loathe tobacco. However, you're a moron. "These days"?!? Try 15 years ago you couldn't sit in a restaurant without some asshole's cigarette smoke killing the flavor of your food."

    You could, however, eat in the non-smoking section. If a restaurant didn't have one that suited you, no one was holding a gun to your head forcing you to eat there.

    I don't smoke anymore...am trying my best to quit, but, really...the govt. has no place dictating what a PRIVATE establishment says you can do in their place of business. Smoking cigarettes is still a legal activity, and if a private place (restaurant or bar) wants to allow it they should be able to. No one forces you to work or spend time there. Let the market win on that one...if a place can make more money or just chooses to be smoke free, that should be their choice.

    The only place I can see smoking bans as being ok, is public buildings, like govt. buildings where you may not have a choice to go there to take care of business. Other than that, this is the nanny state approach. If smoking is so bad, then ban the sale of cigarettes, otherwise it should be free choice of establishments whether they allow it or not.

    No one forces you or anyone else to patronize a private business.

  • Re:Snitch! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ibbie (647332) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @01:20AM (#24355073) Journal

    If people want to take drugs, and ruin their lives,it's their choice , not mine.

    That is an extremely puritan, and (far worse) uneducated opinion that you're voicing there. I mean, what's next? People who enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, oh noes, they're evil! And, *gasp* they might even have sex later that night!

    I know McGruff has done serious damage to the mindsets of the younger generations, but crap, something's got to give.

    I'm not defending heroin, cocaine, or crack; but if you look at the effects of marijuana versus alcohol, they pretty much even out. And plenty of people manage to live their lives just fine after a beer or a glass of wine.

    Personally, I don't consume marijuana. But that's my own, personal preference. I do, however, like a drink on occasion. As long as they're not in a fricken elevator or other enclosed area, I could give a crap less if someone wants to light up and enjoy themselves as well.

    Simply put: idiots ruin lives. Substances aren't the problem. People are.

    (G'bye, karma.)

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 27, 2008 @01:26AM (#24355125)
    Flashbacks? From pot? I honestly believe that your friend was making shit up.

    Acid, sure. It's a hell of a drug. So is PCP, or Meth. But pot? Pot that doesn't have something else in it? No. I call shenanigans.

    (Yeah, laced weed can be a problem. But so can date rape drugs in booze. Booze is still legal, right? Fight the problem, not the vehicle.)
  • by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @02:27AM (#24355503) Homepage Journal

    Actions speak louder than words and this action scream out loud.

    What part of DO NOT TRESPASS do these people not get?
    They get it all right, but they don't care. For them, it's enough to say "call us and complain" or "we'll remove it if you sue us". Well, what about the giant yellow and black ROBOTS.TXT in front of my property? Why isn't that good enough?

    They want to be trusted with your email, your photos, your files, the details of your life. They want to intrude and invade. They will tell you that you should trust them and let them in because they do no evil. Google is god, they would never do bad and they just store data, they never use it.

    Well fuck you Google, you are evil because you don't give a shit about the harm you may do, only that you can get what you want. Just another rich greedy asshole out to make a dime at someone else's expense. Learn some respect for privacy, I know it may be hard since you as a company hate that word.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 27, 2008 @04:20AM (#24356015)

    Personal webpages and wikipedia supposedly as evidence... try the fuck again.

  • Re:Snitch! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xaxa (988988) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @05:48AM (#24356291)

    Yet if they legalised "weak" strains of cannabis then the problem of the strong strains would disappear overnight.

    Regulation > prohibition.

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gax (196168) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @10:54AM (#24357947)

    I'll accept your final sentence - no one is force to patronize a private business. However, I'm astounded that the post has been rated insightful. As I can't mod it down myself, I'll highlight some of the major errors in the argument for others:

    You could, however, eat in the non-smoking section.

    You do realise that the smoking and non-smoking sections are often in the same room? Smoke circulates throughout the room and often ignores signs telling it to stay in a certain area.

    No one forces you to work or spend time there. Let the market win on that one...if a place can make more money or just chooses to be smoke free, that should be their choice.

    Your argument is that large and small businesses should be allowed to do what they want if they make money from it? You also suggest that staff should accept that they have to breathe cigarette smoke for several hours at a time, irrespective of the long-term health concerns b/c they are being paid?

    Seriously?

  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpe (36238) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @11:03AM (#24358007)
    And the "kids will try it more because it's legal" argument is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. Salvia is legal in many states (and Canada as well) and is there a salvia epidemic?

    If anything it's more the case that "kids (actually teenagers) will try it more because it's illegal". The other factor is that legal recreational drugs tend to be available in different forms and strengths compared with illegal ones.
  • Re:Don't snitch.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ultranova (717540) on Sunday July 27, 2008 @07:25PM (#24362087)

    I'm starting to think that Godwin's law should be updated to include child porn.

    By viewing said pictures you not only create demand, but you're increasing the likelihood that you yourself (or someone eles who views said pictures) will cause direct harm to a child.

    No, viewing pictures does not create demand. Searching for more pictures might, but only paying for them actually directly motivates anyone to produce them.

    I fail to see how someone viewing pictures increases the likelihood of someone else doing or not doing anything. Is there a telepathic connection between them, perhaps ?

    As for your last claim, I find it likely that a paedophile who regularly jerks off to child porn or fantasies concerning them - because, by definition, that's what gets him off - is less, not more, likely to do anything to a child he sees on the streets than one who is full of semen up to his eyeballs. Your needs don't go away just because you want to ignore them; if anything, they become more dominant.

    Unlike something like, say, meth, where you're most likely to harm yourself through continued (escalated) use, with child porn, you'll be hurting a child when you get into "harder stuff".

    No, you won't. There is no magical connection between a child and a picture of said child. Whatever action the picture depicts doesn't happen again every time someone looks at it.

    Now I'm going to go puke.

    And writing that shows to all of us that you find the very subject extremely distasteful. Which, of course, is the whole problem: it is politically incorrect - not to mention risky - to consider the subject of paedophilia or child pornography calmly and without emotional outbursts. A failure to demonstrate one's disgust about the subject risks being accused of being either an enabler or a perpetrator. This, of course, makes it impossible to discuss what would actually make children safer, and allow paedophiles to live as good a life as possible without harming said children. Hysteria is great for media and politicians; if it results in ruined lives, for both adults and the children they hurt when they finally snap, then that's just the price the benefiters are willing to pay.

    That' is the truly disgusting thing here: some politicians and media moguls ride to riches and power on the backs of raped children, knowing full well that they're hurting innocent people in the process.

Is a person who blows up banks an econoclast?

Working...