The government has a compelling reason to legalize CP

Societal problems, economics, etc.

I've distilled the prohibitionist arguments down into three broad categories:

1. The Quantum Entanglementists

“These cases involve real-life abuse and assault of children. Every time an image is viewed, it’s like the assault happened again,” said Andrew M. McLees, special agent in charge of the Newark office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations.


(for more detail see viewtopic.php?f=2&t=64596&p=599419&hilit=quantum#p599419 for a protocol based on the alleged primitive

or see viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8456&p=88370&hilit=quantum+entanglement#p88370 for various citations)

Briefly, these individuals believe that the individuals depicted in photographs are affected every time the photographs are observed. This is quite simple to prove false, and if it were true we could literally use molested kids and the CP featuring them for impossible to intercept key exchange. I seriously doubt the NSA is investing much in this.


2. The Triggerists

Dr. Freiden says many sex offenders don’t believe looking at pictures is wrong yet often looking at pictures can lead to offenders preying on children in real life


These individuals believe that viewing CP will lead people to hands on offend with children. Although this may be true in some cases, large scale studies have empirically demonstrated that in every country studied, legalizing CP viewing leads to reduced rates of hands on offending.

https://www.springer.com/about+springer ... -1042321-0

And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children.


Clearly, even if the argument that CP triggers some to offend is true, it is used as an alternative to offending for more, as manifest by the fact that hands on offense rates have an overall decrease rather than increase when CP viewing is legalized.


3. The Economistists

Grisham’s distinction between people who looked at images of child abuse and “real-world abusers” fails to recognise the demand and supply dynamics of the global trade. “These ‘sixty-year-old white men’ are not passive observers,” says Denise Ritchie. “Those who view or seek out such images are in fact the drivers of the trade. Demand for the material fuels supply.


The economistists argue that the demand for CP (presumably as measured by actual CP downloads and not innate desire for CP) inherently leads to the supply of CP. Seeing as the two previously mentioned arguments are false, people often resort to the economistist argument for their fail safe.

However, this is the compelling reason why governments must legalize CP viewing! Not only should the government legalize CP viewing, but the government should actively fund and regulate the transfer of CP. Every single new image the government finds should be hosted by them for anyone to be able to download for free. When new commercial members of the bazillion dollar CP industry form, the government should immediately buy all of their images and host them for free. All CP the government has access to currently should be hosted for free.

And it should be hosted on a distributed private information retrieval network that also has other items hosted on it, such as the library of congress perhaps, for any citizen to be able to download documents that are not CP.

By mixing the CP together with a huge amount of documents that anybody might want to download, and by forcing the use of private information retrieval, and by making it only legal to download CP from this government resource, and by immediately putting all identified CP on this network, the government can cryptographically mask the demand for CP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_i ... _retrieval

In cryptography, a private information retrieval (PIR) protocol allows a user to retrieve an item from a server in possession of a database without revealing which item is retrieved.


Without a demand that can be known (nobody, even the government, can tell how many people are downloading CP through such a system), it cannot have a causative correlation with supply, and thus the economistists qualm is squashed, and presumably a massive deal will have been done to protect children.

The government has a compelling reason to legalize CP, to protect the children.

mrz you are so fucked in the head, I dont even know where to start.

I was under the impression that getting rid of the demand for CP was of utmost importance, I can't think of a better way to do it than via cryptographically masking it with private information retrieval.

LMAO at you taking the time to type all this bullshit out. Fuck you are pathetic. You must spend at least 6 hours a day thinking about cp.
Commit suicide in a coffin crew
ImageImage

Actually, if you use an information theoretically secure PIR algorithm, it's mathematically provable that the demand for CP through such a system cannot possibly have a causative correlation with the supply of CP, because otherwise the PIR algorithm wouldn't maintain secrecy of the items obtained through its utilization (the increase in supply would leak information about the demand, but the demand is guaranteed by information theory to be impossible to determine anything about with an information theoretically secure PIR algorithm).

Why don't you want to cryptographically mask the demand for CP? I thought demand -> supply.

mrz wrote:Actually, if you use an information theoretically secure PIR algorithm, it's mathematically provable that the demand for CP through such a system cannot possibly have a causative correlation with the supply of CP, because otherwise the PIR algorithm wouldn't maintain secrecy of the items obtained through its utilization (the increase in supply would leak information about the demand, but the demand is guaranteed by information theory to be impossible to determine anything about with an information theoretically secure PIR algorithm).


Image

https://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/TOPICS/pir/unified.pdf

Abstract. A Private Information Retrieval (PIR) protocol enables a
user to retrieve a data item from a database while hiding the identity
of the item being retrieved.

.....

This work addresses the information-theoretic setting for PIR, in which
the user’s privacy should be unconditionally protected from collusions
of servers. We present a unified general construction, whose abstract
components can be instantiated to yield both old and new families of PIR
protocols. A main ingredient in the new protocols is a generalization of a
solution by Babai, Kimmel, and Lokam to a communication complexity
problem in the so-called simultaneous messages model.

...

A Private Information Retrieval (PIR) protocol allows a user to retrieve a data
item of its choice from a database, such that the server storing the database does
not gain information on the identity of the item being retrieved. For example,
an investor might want to know the value of a specific stock without revealing
which stock she is interested in. The problem was introduced by Chor, Goldreich,
Kushilevitz, and Sudan [11], and has since then attracted a considerable amount
of attention. In formalizing the problem, it is convenient to model the database
by an n-bit string x, where the user, holding some retrieval index i, wishes to
learn the i-th data bit xi .


A cryptosystem is information-theoretically secure if its security derives purely from information theory.

Brian_Peppers wrote:
mrz wrote:Actually, if you use an information theoretically secure PIR algorithm, it's mathematically provable that the demand for CP through such a system cannot possibly have a causative correlation with the supply of CP, because otherwise the PIR algorithm wouldn't maintain secrecy of the items obtained through its utilization (the increase in supply would leak information about the demand, but the demand is guaranteed by information theory to be impossible to determine anything about with an information theoretically secure PIR algorithm).


Image


Imagine a simplified world where there is a single piece of CP. It is stored on a server that engages in an information theoretically secure PIR protocol with clients. The server also holds another item (of the same size etc) which can also be received with the same algorithm.

Imagine also that the operator of the PIR server has the ability to measure the supply of CP as it is produced.

When Alice engages in the PIR protocol, information theory mathematically guarantees that the operator of the server is incapable of breaking the PIR algorithm to determine if Alice requested the CP file or the non-CP file (if we want to be really pedantic we would also say Alice only uses formally verified everything, and is physically isolated in a SCIF).

If Alice's demand for CP had a causative effect on CP production rates, the operator of the server could determine Alice's request not via breaking the PIR algorithm nor by hacking/TEMPEST, but could do so by analyzing the rate of CP production (it would have a correlative relationship with Alice's choice of item to download).

This would seemingly break the information theoretic security properties of the PIR algorithm. Somehow the demand leaked out to be able to influence something outside of the isolation anyway, but the demand couldn't have leaked through the PIR algorithm, and it couldn't leak through formally verified software that guaranteed against it, and it also couldn't have leaked out through a properly implemented SCIF.

Occam's razor would lead us to believe that the leak through supply rate monitoring is impossible to happen, and therefore the demand for CP does not inherently lead to the production of CP.

uwotm8 wrote:
mrz wrote:
Imagine a simplified world where there is not a single piece of CP.

Fixed that for you,sick fuck.


That will never happen.

Why is it legal to view ISIS beheadings but not CP?
Image
Image
[img/]http://i58.tinypic.com/5uhenn.jpg[/img]

RodgerRabbit wrote:Trying to fix yourself is literally a race against the clock. It's a catch 22. By the time you've fixed all the flaws that prevented you from slaying, you will have lost the one thing most essential to slaying in the first place -- youth.
NewGenious119 wrote:This idea that nobody owes anyone anything completely goes against the entire point of even having a society in the first place. If society doesn't owe an individual person anything, then the individual owes society nothing either, so don't be surprised when they take their frustration out on the world.

There is absolutely NO GOOD reason why, in the 21st century, every person shouldn't have their basic needs met. That means food, shelter, clothing, and transportation for all and, yes, if you are a male, sexual access to attractive females as that is considered a basic need for men as well.
Leebyunghun wrote:The number one source of strife in human existence is the inequality of looks among the male species.
germanDream wrote:a woman would fuck a cute dog or horse over an average faced man ANY day of the week. its not even close. women are repulsed by non male model men
PuaKiller wrote:Most women couldn't last a month as an incel male. They'd suicide. Prostitution would be legal worldwide and virgin shaming would cease if women were put in the shoes of an incel male for even a month. They couldn't handle it.
firehaze wrote:If a girl has never made it obvious that she likes you then you're a lot more subhuman than you think.



http://twitter.com/incelvoice

#NoHymenNoDiamond

Anti-Degeneracy crew

https://www.reddit.com/r/Truecels/

uwotm8 wrote:
OmegaKV wrote:Why is it legal to view ISIS beheadings but not CP?

Why should CP be legal if the action recorded in the video is higly immoral and illegal?


If they arrest men for looking at naughty pics of 15yo's (they don't have to be "molested") and label those men pedophiles, then why are they not arresting men for looking at snuff video's of beheadings and labeling them "muderers".

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests