Porn Sunday

Doesn't matter they're all a bunch of cunts anyway. If you're reading this MI5, I took a piss on your building once.

OK cool, all I know is one day I could watch Hanson loads on youtube, then not at all. Then I figured why not pretend to be American and pipe all my youtube through that server?! It worked! I didn't really believe that the "recording industry" was a real entity, but I thought youtube were forced into this by someone or other? Not that I care, proxy works very nicely...

PRS want to claim better royalties for writers whose music appears on Youtube.

[cite]Wikipedia[/cite]
Tor software is now developed by the Tor Project, which since December 2006 is a 501(c)(3) research/education non-profit organization based in the United States of America that receives a diverse base of financial support.

Good to know it's made out of decent heavy chromoly steel. I wouldn't want an anonymity network built out of this magic 953 stuff, it would never survive a direct assault from the diamond-plated cock of the government.

'lol', repeat 'lol'.

the diamond-plated cock of the government.

What do you know alex ?

Give me the names of your sources ?

Have you had your cock stamped ?

Where is your cock stamp.

Arrest this man.

.

On another note, apparently the percentage of internet bandwidth used dedicated to pornography as actually very very small. Less than 1% in fact.

On another note, apparently the percentage of internet bandwidth used dedicated to pornography as actually very very small. Less than 1% in fact.

Maybe for you, but for me it is at least 80%.

On another note, apparently the percentage of internet bandwidth used dedicated to pornography as actually very very small. Less than 1% in fact.

If you're quoting QI, I don't recall it being made clear what the 1% referred to. Storage used, total bytes transferred, number of page requests? There are many different measures of what "1% of the internet" means.

If you're quoting QI, I don't recall it being made clear what the 1% referred to. Storage used, total bytes transferred, number of page requests? There are many different measures of what "1% of the internet" means.

Cocks wanked.

If you're quoting QI, I don't recall it being made clear what the 1% referred to. Storage used, total bytes transferred, number of page requests? There are many different measures of what "1% of the internet" means.

I do get a disproportionate amount of my knowledge from QI. Thanks to Dave, the looks of surprise are replaced people saying 'you heard that on QI, you pathetic worthless human being.'

I do get a disproportionate amount of my knowledge from QI. Thanks to Dave, the looks of surprise are replaced people saying 'you heard that on QI, you pathetic worthless human being.'

Mind you Fry is a bit of a polymath, you can't knock him really.

Mind you Fry is a bit of a polymath, you can't knock him really.

Fry may be Greatest Living Englishman, but I still wonder where that 1% came from, and what it measured. A wide range of numbers have been touted for various measures of how much internet use is porn related, but always in double digit percentages for the period 2004 to 2007. I can't believe the MyFace generation suddenly cut porn's share by 90% in two years.

YouTube - The Internet Is For Porn

If you really want to hide stuff you still can. Otherwise, it makes bugger all difference, cos the police don't care if I'm chatting about bikes or looking at "hot naked babes".

Your entire argument, but especially this bit, sound sinisterly close to the statement "I've nothing to hide, so why should I fear this at all", from which the questions "Do you have something to hide?" and "Those who have will get what's coming to them" are implicit.

I'd contend that EVERYONE has something to hide, people need only look hard enough for long enough and have some notion of what the person fears (such as shame, humiliation, etc).

Have you ever read the essay by Solove on this very point? You can download it from here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Mirror 5 always works if the SSRN link doesn't.

For me personally the "I've nothing to hide so I've nothing to fear" line echoes a police arrest mantra, "Anything you say or do, can and will be used against you". Sounds OK, I've nothing to hide so why should I fear... but note that the statement doesn't say it can and will be used FOR you, or to HELP you, it only says that anything you say or do can and will be used AGAINST you. Is anyone so sure that nothing that they ever say or do isn't possible to be used against you?

The defence of the "nothing to hide" argument is based on the assumption that privacy is merely a vehicle to hide "bad things", and that people who don't have "bad things" don't require privacy. Which when phrased like that is laughable as it re-defines privacy as concealment... the right to privacy becomes the right to concealment. It's a fundamentally incorrect conclusion to draw, you do have the right to privacy, and this is not in conflict with not having the right to murder, rape, etc.

You should not be conceding the right to privacy, as once given up you will never be able to get it back.

There are plans for a central database - which will store just about everything about you even, your sexual habits (confirmed to be on the 2011 census).

The Census (and I don't think it has been confirmed though) would be asking questions on your sexual orientation rather than your sexual habits. There's a big difference.

I get a lot of Daily Mail readers asking me what business is it of mine what they get up to in bed. It's none of my business - that's why I ask them whether they're heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual, and not whether they like a bit of water sports, scatplay or BDSM.

The Census is meant to assist Government in planning its resources for the next decade. Accordingly, it could be very useful for them to know people's sexual habits as well as their inclination for other recreational pursuits.

"Minister, it is evident from the census that we require 47 fewer golf courses in the Home Counties, but 6 new velodromes and 450 BDSM dungeons".

I do get a disproportionate amount of my knowledge from QI. Thanks to Dave, the looks of surprise are replaced people saying 'you heard that on QI, you pathetic worthless human being.'

43.54% to be precise.

The Census (and I don't think it has been confirmed though) would be asking questions on your sexual orientation rather than your sexual habits. There's a big difference.

You are absolutely right, I use 'sexual habits' here are a kind of common parlance for 'sexual orientation'.

I get a lot of Daily Mail readers asking me what business is it of mine what they get up to in bed. It's none of my business - that's why I ask them whether they're heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual, and not whether they like a bit of water sports, scatplay or BDSM.

What do you do for a job ?

You seem to attempt to write off genuine concerns about privacy by traducing anyone (or everyone?) who challenges this invasive questioning as 'Daily Mail readers'.

Old technique, much used, easily seen through.

And what business is it yours (the governments) whether someone is heterosexual, gay, lesbian or bisexual ?

Your entire argument, but especially this bit, sound sinisterly close to the statement "I've nothing to hide, so why should I fear this at all", from which the questions "Do you have something to hide?" and "Those who have will get what's coming to them" are implicit.

I'd contend that EVERYONE has something to hide, people need only look hard enough for long enough and have some notion of what the person fears (such as shame, humiliation, etc).

Have you ever read the essay by Solove on this very point? You can download it from here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565 Mirror 5 always works if the SSRN link doesn't.

For me personally the "I've nothing to hide so I've nothing to fear" line echoes a police arrest mantra, "Anything you say or do, can and will be used against you". Sounds OK, I've nothing to hide so why should I fear... but note that the statement doesn't say it can and will be used FOR you, or to HELP you, it only says that anything you say or do can and will be used AGAINST you. Is anyone so sure that nothing that they ever say or do isn't possible to be used against you?

The defence of the "nothing to hide" argument is based on the assumption that privacy is merely a vehicle to hide "bad things", and that people who don't have "bad things" don't require privacy. Which when phrased like that is laughable as it re-defines privacy as concealment... the right to privacy becomes the right to concealment. It's a fundamentally incorrect conclusion to draw, you do have the right to privacy, and this is not in conflict with not having the right to murder, rape, etc.

You should not be conceding the right to privacy, as once given up you will never be able to get it back.

Well said and some good points, especially the last about an expansion of state powers being a one way street.

I hadn't even started on my rant about privacy being a pre-requisite of democracy and you cannot by definition be part of a democracy without privacy. But then... it was early in the morning and I hadn't yet had coffee or breakfast.

What do you do for a job ?

You seem to attempt to write off genuine concerns about privacy by traducing anyone (or everyone?) who challenges this invasive questioning as 'Daily Mail readers'.

Old technique, much used, easily seen through.

I'm an equality manager for a London borough council. You're right that I do need to clarify my position - in the context of my job, it's my responsibility to use information on the borough's population to identify customer needs and adjust services to suit.

The problem I have though, is reconciling this with the fact that this information can also be used irresponsibly. I have explored this a little in the thread in the private section.

I honestly don't label people as Daily Mail readers by simple virtue of the fact they question why we collect information on their backgrounds or their needs, but where I work, they happen to be just that. I appreciate that it's my responsibility therefore to improve accountability and to get the message out about why we ask for that information, but 90% of the time, you do get this sneering 'why do you want to know what I get up to in the bedroom?' question. Do they actually think I give a fuck whether they get their jollies from whips and chains or fluffy handcuffs?

I probably responded to what you said too strongly, but it does annoy me when people seem to think that homosexuality is concerned solely with who you shag.

The "I've got nothing to hide" argument is particularly fragile in times of economic turmoil. Trusting today's Government could result in giving powers to an altogether less benevolent machine in the near future.

Remember always the poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller:

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.

[*]When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

I'm an equality manager for a London borough council. You're right that I do need to clarify my position - in the context of my job, it's my responsibility to use information on the borough's population to identify customer needs and adjust services to suit.

What services would be specific to bi-sexual or heterosexual 'customers' ?

I honestly don't label people as Daily Mail readers by simple virtue of the fact they question why we collect information on their backgrounds or their needs, but where I work, they happen to be just that.

Why mention the newspaper they read at all ?

Be honest here, you attempt to smear their legitimate concerns by labelling them as Daily Mail readers, naked ad hominem.

What services would be specific to bi-sexual or heterosexual 'customers' ?

It's a catch 22 situation half the time - we need to ask the question to find out.

Why mention the newspaper they read at all?

Because while you're right that it grossly oversimplifies and stereotypes, it's a label that people can easily identify with, and sums up a particular group of people without having to resort to a lengthy description. I like to think we're intelligent enough to appreciate that. I may not wear alpaca wool ponchos or patagonian twat hats, or frequent Hammersmith reading clubs, but generally, 'Guardianista' sums me up quite well.

Be honest here, you attempt to smear their legitimate concerns by labelling them as Daily Mail readers, naked ad hominem.

Now let's be clear about this - it's not an 'ad hominem' because I'm not trying to denigrate the people or write off their concerns just because they happen to read a particular newspaper - it's a simple statement that the majority of people who tend to ask this question in this way, tend to read the Daily Mail. If there's an alternate descriptor that works just as well, I'd be more than happy to use it.

I fear we may be getting off the subject though...

Don't heterosexuals have a greater propensity for breeding than other elements of society and so, if you introduce heterosexuality into the population you may need to commit greater resources to maternity, childcare and education than you otherwise might.